I love the FDA’s qualified health claims for food products because they are so patently ridiculous.

These are health claims so poorly supported by science that the FDA insists on a disclaimer.

What’s their point?  Companies can use them for marketing and put the disclaimer in tiny print.

The latest is the FDA’s response to a petition from the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s, which asked the FDA to approve these health claims:

• EPA and DHA help lower blood pressure in the general population.
• EPA and DHA reduce BP, a risk factor for CHD (coronary heart disease).
• EPA and DHA reduce the risk of CHD.
• Research shows that EPA and DHA may be beneficial for moderating BP, a risk factor for CHD.
• Convincing scientific evidence indicates that EPA and DHA help lower blood pressure in the general population, with comparable reductions to those achieved with other diet and lifestyle interventions.

Not a chance.

The FDA did its own review of the literature and quite sensibly concluded that evidence supporting such claims is too weak to take seriously.

Instead, the FDA said that

In light of the above considerations, FDA intends to consider the exercise of its enforcement discretion for the following qualified health claims [with my emphasis in red]:

• Consuming EPA and DHA combined may help lower blood pressure in the general population and reduce the risk of hypertension. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.
• Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce blood pressure and reduce the risk of hypertension, a risk factor for CHD (coronary heart disease). However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.
• Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD (coronary heart disease) by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.
• Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD (coronary heart disease) by reducing the risk of hypertension. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.
• Research shows that consuming EPA and DHA combined may be beneficial for moderating blood pressure, a risk factor for CHD (coronary heart disease). However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.

In order to use these claims, the products would have to contain at least 0.8 g EPA and DHA (combined total).

Absurd as all this may seem, the approval of qualified claims is considered a win for the omega 3 industry.

Why does the FDA allow such claims?  Because Congress said it had to permit claims even if evidence was insufficient to back them up [but see below].

Sigh.

Correction: A Twitter correspondent, Ilene Heller (@foodcop819), reminds me that the courts, not Congress, forced the FDA to allow qualified health claims on First Amendment grounds.  In 1990, Congress forced the FDA to allow health claims in general as part of the nutrition labeling act.  In 1994, Congress passed the dietary supplement act that essentially deregulated these products and allowed “structure/function” claims for them.  Food companies wanted to use them too.  Whenever the FDA objected that science didn’t support the claims, supplement companies took the FDA to court.  In 2003, the FDA gave up: “We have lost 8 of 10 First Amendment decisions, and doing business the way we were doing it was unsustainable” (New York Times, July 6, 2003).  The so-called qualified health claims are the absurd result.

Estimation of Total Usual Dietary Intakes of Pregnant Women in the United States.  Regan L. Bailey, Susan G. Pac, Victor L. Fulgoni III, et al.  JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(6):e195967. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5967 June 21, 2019

Question  How do the usual dietary intakes of pregnant US women compare with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes for nutritional adequacy and excess?

Conclusions and Relevance.  This study suggests that a significant number of pregnant women are not meeting recommendations for vitamins D, C, A, B₆, K, and E, as well as folate, choline, iron, calcium, potassium, magnesium, and zinc even with the use of dietary supplements.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bailey reported serving as a consultant to Nutrition Impact LLC, Nestle/Gerber, RTI International, and the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Dr Fulgoni, as Senior Vice President of Nutrition Impact LLC, reported performing consulting and database analyses for various food and beverage companies and related entities. Ms Pac and Dr Reidy reported being employees of Nestle Nutrition. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This research was funded by Nestle Nutrition. Nestle Nutrition and Nutrition Impact had a financial agreement for completion of the statistical analysis. Drs Bailey and Catalano received an honorarium for the time contributed to manuscript development.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Nestle Nutrition had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Comment: It’s Nestlé, not Nestle, the company, not me.  Nestlé is the largest food and beverage company in the world, selling $94 billion worth of products in 2018.  This study is part of the company’s plan to focus on personalized nutrition—functional food products targeted to the personal nutritional needs of individuals.

We continue to invest in long-term innovation projects with the potential for high returns. Examples include infant and maternal nutrition, healthy aging, personalized nutrition, and understanding the microbiome.

It is in Nestlé’s corporate interests to demonstrate that pregnant women are deficient in essential nutrients as a basis for creating nutrient-supplemented products targeted to this group.  Are U.S. pregnant women really deficient in 13 nutrients as reported here?  This study’s conclusions are based on comparison of self-reported dietary intake to average daily nutrient intakes.  They are not based on laboratory or observed measurements of clinical signs of deficiency. To me, this looks like a typical industry-funded study with results favorable to the sponsor’s marketing interests, as I discuss in my book, Unsavory Truth.

I can hardly keep up with what’s happening with plant-based and cultured-meat products.  Here’s my latest collection from various newsletters and other sources.  Take a look at the ones that interest you.  This is a quick way to get a broad picture of where this industry is headed and how these products are viewed.

Bottom line: meat alternatives are big business.

• Your questions about fake meat, lab grown meat and clean meat answered.  Let’s start off this collection with an explanation of the issues from my former student Maggie Tauranac, now working at the Grace Foundation, and writing in Edible Manhattan. She says: Until we know more about the full impact of these products on humans and on the planet, the jury is still out on whether they will be celebrated, feared, avoided or ignored.
• Vandana Shiva’s take: Fake Food, Fake Meat: Big Food’s Desperate Attempt to Further the Industrialisation of Food:  The promotion of fake foods seems to have more to do with giving new life to failing GMO agriculture and the Junk Food Industry, and the threat from the rising consciousness that organic, local, fresh food is real food: that which regenerates the planet and our health.
• Lab-grown insect cells could be the planet-friendly “meat” of the future, according to Grist.
• Food Navigator reports on a survey by the International Food Information Council asking Americans whether almond milk contains cow’s milk.  16% are not sure, 9% say yes, and 75%, fortunately, say no.
• The New Food Economy reports that Tyson’s is getting into the plant-based meat product business.  Perdue Farms, Nestlé and Hormel Foods also plan to enter this market.  But note: Critics complain that the products are not really plant-based.
• $16B invested in plant-based and cell-cultured meat since 2009  The Good Food Institute noted in two reports that changing consumer attitudes and the boost in sales of meat alternatives are driving these funds.
• Impossible Burgers run short as manufacturer ‘spares no expense’ to double supply: Statements from the company confirm its production capacity and a steep incline in demand has caused the shortage, and sourcing ingredients is not the issue.
• From microalgae to 3D printed steak: ‘The future is meatless’  As the sustainability agenda rises in the food industry, innovators are increasingly looking at ways of swapping out meat for a plant-based counterpart. FoodNavigator explores three innovations in the sector: microalgae omega-3, scalable mycoprotein, and 3D printed steak… Read
• What does ‘plant-based eating’ really mean, and how can firms tap into the trend?  Next-generation meat, egg, and dairy alternatives have garnered a huge amount of press (and investment), but there are many other ways for brands to meet demand for plant-based foods, says a report from consultancy New Nutrition Business querying whether brands such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are overhyped and overvalued… Read
• Analysts: Cell-cultured and plant-based meat could be 10% of the market by 2029:  While wide distribution of lab-grown meat is likely years away, Barclays says plant-based products have garnered favorable consumer response and both sectors could be worth $140 billion.
• Plant-based and cell-cultured ‘meat’ labeling under attack in 25 states: Bills to prevent plant-based and/or cell-cultured products from being labeled as ‘meat’ or ‘beef’ have been introduced in 25 US states, and have already passed in states including Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, North Dakota and South Dakota. But what, if anything, can opponents do to stop them?.. Read
• Water lentil milk… a new option in the plant-based dairy case?  A new option could soon be available in the burgeoning plant-based milk category utilizing the protein-packed ‘water lentil,’ a free-floating seed-producing micro aquatic plant (also known as duckweed and Lemna/Lemnaceae)… Read
• After exiting Beyond Meat, how will Tyson do with its own plant-based products?  In an earnings call this week, CEO Noel White said the company’s reach will allow it to move quickly into the marketplace this summer.
• Research article from Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems: Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle.   
• Beyond the burger: A look at the building blocks used to make better plant-based meat: As consumers hunger for options in the red-hot space, scientists are deepening their understanding of how to make the products even more like their animal-based alternatives.

FoodNavigator-USA.com, an industry newsletter, has a collection of articles about Kombucha, a drink that Wikipedia defines as:

A fermented, slightly alcoholic, lightly effervescent, sweetened black or green tea drink commonly intended as a functional beverage for its supposed health benefits. Sometimes the beverage is called kombucha tea to distinguish it from the culture of bacteria and yeast.  Juice, spices, or other flavorings are often added to enhance the taste of the beverage. The exact origins of kombucha are not known…Kombucha is produced by fermenting sugared tea using a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast (SCOBY) commonly called a “mother” or “mushroom”…The living bacteria are said to be probiotic, one of the reasons for the drink’s popularity.

Slightly alcoholic?  No wonder it is so popular.

It’s obviously a major seller.  Here is the dedicated Kombucha display at the Wegmans upstate in Ithaca, New York.

The makers of kombucha want to sell more of it.  Here’s what they think the market issues are these days:

• Aqua ViTea: The kombucha industry has not dealt with its alcohol problem: <Raising the threshold above which kombucha would be classified as an alcoholic beverage from 0.5% to 1.25% abv, is not the way to deal with the industry’s alcohol problem, says Vermont-based kombucha brand Aqua ViTea, which utilizes spinning cone technology to remove most of the alcohol from its products before bottling… Read
• GT Dave backs kombucha standard of identity: ‘I hope this will encourage people to take the high road’: Defining what kombucha is – and just as importantly, what it isn’t – is mission critical if industry pioneers are to preserve the integrity of the category as more brands enter the segment, argues GT Dave, founder of market leader GT’s Living Foods… Read  
• WATCH: Bare Bucha and Stout Tanks unveil radical new approach to controlling alcohol in kombucha:  A novel approach to brewing kombucha in stackable rectangular trays could help dramatically speed up the fermentation process and keep alcohol levels consistently below 0.5% abv, solving a major technical challenge for the industry, according to kombucha brand Bare Bucha and craft brewery equipment supplier Stout Tanks… Watch now
• Kombucha and fermented beverage sales are up 21%, but velocities are down, says SPINS:  US retail sales of refrigerated kombucha and other fermented beverages (including hard kombucha) were up 21% to $728.8m in measured channels* in the year to February 24, 2019 driven by strong distribution gains. However, velocities were down fairly sharply, delegates at the 2019 KombuchaKon conference were told… Read
• What’s an ‘authentic’ kombucha? Let the market decide, say Rowdy Mermaid and Camellia Grove:  Trade association Kombucha Brewers International (KBI) wants lawmakers to raise the threshold above which kombucha would be classified as an alcoholic beverage from 0.5% to 1.25% abv, and is gearing up to publish a standard of identity for ‘authentic’ kombucha. But not everyone is on board… Read
• What is an ‘authentic’ kombucha? KBI gears up to publish definition:  As a wave of lawsuits has brought the debate over what kombucha is and how it is made into sharper focus, trade association Kombucha Brewers International (KBI) is putting the finishing touches on a standard it claims will help preserve the integrity of the category as it grows… Read

And here’s a later addition:

• The mojo behind MOJO: Coca-Cola’s recently acquired kombucha brand shares secrets of success: Australian firm MOJO Kombucha’s pledge to authenticity and no artificial sweeteners are what have helped it grow from a small family business to becoming a major name in the country, and recently being acquired by beverage giant Coca-Cola, according to a top company official…Read

I was interested to see what BakeryandSnacks.com had to say about PepsiCo’s investment in Mexico.

This company, which makes ultra-processed drinks and snacks, plans to invest $4 billion in Mexico over the next two years.

The $4 billion will be spent on “four strategic areas:”

• Improved supply chains for potatoes, corn, and sugar, purchased from small, medium and large producers ($1 billion).
• Improved nutrient profile of PepsiCo products (the total is unspecified but $13 million will go to reducing saturated fats).
• Reduced CO2 emissions and increased renewable energy (amount unspecified).
• Strengthened development programs focused on water, recycling, nutrition and the empowerment of women (> $7 million).

This is on top of the $5 billion Pepsi invested in Mexico in 2014 for “product innovation, brand consolidation, infrastructure, sourcing, and community outreach.”

Pepsi has a big operation in Mexico.  It claims the new investment will add 3000 jobs to the 80,000 it already employs there.

What is this about?  In 2017, Mexico’s $3.6 billion in sales represented nearly 6% of PepsiCo’s total global net revenues of $63.5 billion.

I’ll bet Pepsi sees plenty of room for growth.  I do too, but also in the prevalence of obesity and related chronic disease.

I care about what’s happening to the ERS because I depend on the research it produces and have relied on its authoritative studies for decades.  I trust ERS researchers to be honest, independent, and wonderfully available to provide expert interpretation of USDA data.  It breaks my heart to see the destruction of an agency I considered to be a national treasure.  I thought it would be protected by being under the radar.  Apparently not.

Staff losses and politicization means that the ERS is highly unlikely to continue doing that same kind of independent, critical research.  This is an enormous loss.

The USDA sent out a press release announcing that the ERS offices would be moved to Kansas City.

USDA says it is doing this for these reasons:

The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run. We will be placing important USDA resources closer to many stakeholders, most of whom live and work far from Washington, D.C. In addition, we are increasing the probability of attracting highly-qualified staff with training and interests in agriculture, many of whom come from land-grant universities.

Do we believe this?  No, we do not.

As Politico reports,

The proposal has already sparked a brain-drain of veteran economists from ERS, and some lawmakers and ERS staff allege relocation is a back-door attempt to shrink the agency and clamp down on research that doesn’t align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

Politico notes that “USDA paid the consulting firm Ernst & Young $340,000 to run the site selection process.”

In the meantime, ERS employees voted to unionize.  OK, better late than never.

Jerry Hagstrom of The Hagstrom Report  attended USDA Secretary Sonny Purdue’s announcement of the location of the move to ERS employees.  Union members expressed their displeasure openly (they have nothing to lose at this point).

This was a small agency doing quality work.  Its destruction is an American tragedy.

Thanks to the Hagstrom report for providing links to relevant documents:

USDA Research, Education, and Economics — ERS Directed Reassignment Letter (sample)
— Notice of Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Authority
— Offer of Directed Reassignment: Acceptance/Declination Form
— Application for Voluntary Separation Incentive Program Buyout
— Frequently Asked Questions: Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP)
— Sample Buyout Computation Worksheets
— Tax Questions on Buyouts (VSIP)

KC Area Development Council — USDA + KC: Relocation
— KC Now (video)

The ERS union’s letter to USDA for help with the move

Pistachio consumption modulates DNA oxidation and genes related to telomere maintenance: a crossover randomized clinical trial.
Silvia Canudas, Pablo Hernández-Alonso, Serena Galié, Jananee Muralidharan, Lydia Morell-Azanza, Guillermo Zalba, Jesús García-Gavilán,1Amelia Martí, Jordi Salas-Salvadó, and Mònica Bulló.  Am J Clin Nutr 2019;0:1–8.

Conclusions: “Chronic pistachio consumption reduces oxidative damage to DNA and increases the gene expression of some telomere-associated genes. Lessening oxidative damage to DNA and telomerase expression through diet may represent an intriguing way to promote healthspan in humans, reversing certain deleterious metabolic consequences of prediabetes.”

Funding: “The Western Pistachio Association( USA) and Paramount Farms [which grows pistachios and is owned by POM Wonderful] supported the trial… None of the funding sources played a role in the design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

Comment: I love pistachios.  Like other seeds and nuts, pistachios provide healthy fats and other nutrient along with their calories.  POM Wonderful is notorious for spending fortunes on research to prove the health benefits of the nuts and fruits it produces.  These are, of course, high on the recommended-for-health list.  Therefore, as I discuss in Unsavory Truth, such studies are about marketing, not science.

Anna Zeide.  Canned: The Rise and Fall of Consumer Confidence in the American Food Industry.  University of California Press, 2018.

This book uses the history of canned foods—beginning with condensed milk, peas, olives, tomatoes, and tuna, and ending up with BPA (bisphenol A, an endocrine disrupter)—to examine Americans’ changing relationship with industrially produced foods.

Canned foods have had their ups and downs in this country.  As Zeide explains, canning

means that people who have insecure housing without steady access to refrigeration, or who simply to not have the time or materials to prep fresh ingredients, can still eat relatively healthful meals.  Canned fruits, vegetables, and fish would be welcome additions to the food deserts of many low-income areas, which otherwise provide highly processed, sugary, and fatty foods with little nutritional quality.  Relatedly, the rejection of canned food—especially among members of a younger generation who hail from middle-and upper-class backgrounds—has implicit class biases.  Cans were once a symbol of modernity in the United States but now are seen as poverty food.  If we are to expect a fresher, perhaps healthier, way of eating to spread to all people, we must create economic and regulatory systems that make that possible (p. 192).