Here’s another study where I guessed its funder from its title.

Everyone knows whole grains are healthy and recommended.  Why do this study?  Maybe it helps to have more evidence?

Once you know the funder, you can also guess what the study will show.

To wit:

Whole Grain Wheat Consumption Affects Postprandial Inflammatory Response in a Randomized Controlled Trial in Overweight and Obese Adults with Mild Hypercholesterolemia in the Graandioos Study.  Hoevenaars FPM, et al. The Journal of Nutrition, 2019: nxz177, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxz177

Objective: “The health impact of WGW [whole grain wheat] consumption was investigated by quantification of the body’s resilience, which was defined as the ‘ability to adapt to a standardized challenge.’”

Method: “A double-blind RCT [randomized control trial] was performed with overweight and obese…men (n = 19) and postmenopausal women (n = 31) aged 45–70 y, with mildly elevated plasma total cholesterol…who were randomly assigned to either 12-wk WGW (98 g/d) or refined wheat (RW).”

Conclusion: “Twelve-week 98 g/d WGW consumption can promote liver and inflammatory resilience in overweight and obese subjects with mildly elevated plasma cholesterol.”

Funding: “Supported by the public private partnership entitled “Combining innovation with tradition: improving resilience with essential nutrients and whole wheat bread,” financed by Topsector Agri & Food (TKI-AF 12083). This project was sponsored by TNO roadmap Nutrition and Health and co-funded by Cereal Partners Worldwide, the Dutch Bakery Center, and GoodMills Innovation GmbH. The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, nor the preparation of the manuscript.”

Comment: As I keep saying (see Unsavory Truth), funders do not have to be involved.  Their influence starts from the get-go, and usually shows up in the way the research question is asked, as seen in this example.  This study is not about finding out about how whole wheat affects health (basic science); it is about demonstrating benefits from whole wheat consumption (marketing).  I’m in favor of eating more whole wheat, rather than refined, but wish food companies selling whole grains would stay out of conflicted research.

The Environmental Working Group does a good job of tracking government payments to agricultural producers.  This makes fascinating reading.

The EWG documents what is happening with the bailout program intended to insulate farmers from the effects of the trade war with China.

Here is a question to ponder over the weekend:

Q: Who benefits from these payments?

A: Trump campaign advisors, of course.

Food law used to be so boring that hardly any law schools taught anything about it.  Now it’s a hot topic.  To understand why, take a look at FoodNavigator-USA’s collection of articles, titled Food in the dock: Food & beverage litigation 

• Judge says lawsuit taking issue with added sugar levels in Clif Bar can proceed:  A court has rejected Clif Bar’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit* accusing it of duping consumers by presenting bars that are “loaded with sugar” as wholesome and nutritious – allegations the company describes as “absurd” and “implausible.”.. Read  
• General Mills prevails in false ad lawsuit over sugar content in cereals… after three-year battle:  <General Mills has finally prevailed in a false advertising lawsuit* over sugar levels in its cereals after three years of legal wrangling, with the judge concluding that the plaintiffs “cannot plausibly claim to be misled.”..
• Who is behind THC-infused STONEY PATCH gummies? Mondelēz Canada secures court order to find out: A California court has granted a request from Mondelēz Canada to compel Facebook and Google to release information associated with Instagram and Gmail accounts of a company selling THC-infused gummies under the STONEY PATCH brand… Read
• Tillamook presents deceptive image of milk sourcing strategy, alleges lawsuit; Tillamook ‘adamantly disagrees’:  Tillamook presents a bucolic image of a dairy brand sourcing milk from cows grazing on local small farms, when in fact most of its milk comes from industrial scale factory farms, alleges a lawsuit accusing the firm of deceptive practices… Read
• LaCroix: Natural flavors lawsuit is a ‘classic fishing expedition’:  The legal dispute over the ‘natural’ credentials of LaCroix sparkling beverages is heating up with brand owner National Beverage Corp urging a court in Illinois to enter a protective order shielding it from discovery that it claims would compel it to release trade secrets… Read
• Plant-based ‘meat’ battle heats up in Arkansas as Tofurky challenges ‘unconstitutional’ law: A law (Act 501) coming into force in Arkansas on July 24 puts plant-based brands between a rock and a hard place by restricting the use of ‘meaty’ terms to products derived from slaughtered animals, alleges a new lawsuit filed by Turtle Island Foods (d.b.a. Tofurky)… Read
• PBFA and Upton’s Naturals challenge Mississippi law restricting plant-based and cell-cultured ‘meat’ labeling:  The Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) and member company Upton’s Naturals have filed a lawsuit in Mississippi challenging a new labeling law that could make using ‘meaty’ terms to describe plant-based and cell-cultured meat subject to criminal penalties… Read
• Fairlife fallout… attorneys weigh in as the lawsuits pile up:  Four class action lawsuits have already been filed against high-protein milk brand fairlife, its founders, and JV partner Coca-Cola over alleged animal abuse at its flagship dairy farm in Indiana, but this could be just the beginning of the company’s legal problems, predict experts… Read

I was astounded to learn that the USDA spends more than $900 million a year on nutrition education since I can hardly recall seeing any of it.

But now we have a Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis of USDA’s expenditures on nutrition education.

The GAO says that USDA does not:

• Coordinate its nutrition education efforts
• Use the expertise of USDA nutritionists
• Make nutrition education a priority
• Have leadership with responsibility for nutrition education
• Share information across sub-agencies and avoid duplicating efforts
• Assign nutrition education experts to appropriate sub-agencies

No big surprise here—I’ve been hearing such complaints since I worked for the government in the late 1980s—but it’s good to see them documented.

Most of the report is about nutrition education for participants in WIC, SNAP, and other nutrition assistance programs.

Note that there is no line budget for promotion of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a statement of of federal nutrition policy, or for MyPlate, a food guide directed at the general public.  Funds to promote these documents have to be authorized by Congress.

Note also that while $900 million seems like a lot of money, it is considerably below what companies like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola each spend on advertising every year.

The CDC reports that more than 1000 people have been infected with a toxic form of Salmonella, almost certainly from contact with backyard poultry.

Among these cases of illness, 23% are among children under the age of 5 years.

The link to backyard poultry comes from epidemiologic and laboratory evidence.

The CDC warns owners of backyard poultry to take steps to avoid acquiring Salmonella from their poultry

This problem has become so serious that the CDC has a webpage devoted to the safety of backyard poultry.

Best to follow its advice.

Curcumin is a flavonoid antioxidant isolated from turmeric, the spice used in Indian curries, among other foods.

It is about as overhyped as any ingredient I have encountered lately for its “proven ability” to fight Alzheimer’s, heart disease, cancer, and anything else that ails you.  If only this could be true.  If it were, people in India who use this in their cooking would all live exceptionally long and healthy lives.

But to convince skeptics like me—and to sell curcumin supplements of course—the makers of such supplements fund studies.

I learned about this study from the industry newsletter, NutraIngredients-Latam.

It reported on a an abstract of a clinical trial of a curcumin supplement, Longvida,™ made by Verdure Sciences. 

The study:  This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups clinical trial in which participants were given Longvida™ (400 mg daily containing 80 mg curcumin) or a matching placebo.

Results: After 12 weeks, the curcumin group did better on memory performance and other tests, and after 4 weeks showed less tension, anger, confusion and total mood disturbance.

Conclusions: “These results confirm that Longvida™ improves aspects of mood and working memory in a healthy older cohort. The pattern of results…may hold promise for alleviating cognitive decline in some populations.”

Funding: Surprise! “This study was funded by a grant from Verdure Sciences.”

Comment: I see three problems here with the Nutraingredients report.

(1) When funders have a vested interest in the outcome of studies, biases tend to creep in.

(2) The report is based on an abstract, not on a complete account of the trial; this makes the methods difficult to assess.

(3) The report did not mention that study was funded by a company with a vested interest in the result; it should have.

The World Resources Institute has issued this report.

Here’s what it does:

1.  We encourage countries and companies to adopt the global SDG 12.3 target as their own, measure their  food loss and waste (since what gets measured gets managed), and take action on the hotspots identified. Although simple, this “Target-Measure-Act” approach is proving effective.
2.  We identify a short-list of “to do’s” for each type of actor in the food supply chain. If you don’t know which actions to take, start with this list and go from there.
3.  To scale up the impact and pace of these actor-specific interventions, we recommend 10 interventions that tackle food loss and waste across the entire supply chain, target a handful of food loss and waste hotspots, and help
   set the enabling policy and financial conditions that are necessary for success.

It has a great laundry list of recommendations, some of which we can all do right now.

Others will require systems change.

Food for thought.

A reader, Gema Flores Monreal, who holds a doctorate in Food Science and Nutrition, pointed me to this study.  She noted that it examines the effects on blood pressure of eating 5 to 6 servings of dairy per day, twice what is typically recommended. 

it is easy to understand why a dairy company would want research like this.  People are consuming less dairy food, and the industry wants to reverse the decline.

The study:  Effect of high compared with low dairy intake on blood pressure in overweight middle-aged adults: results of a randomized crossover intervention study.  Rietsema S, and 11 other authors.  Am J Clin Nutr 2019;110:340–348.

Conclusions: “This intervention study shows that an HDD [high dairy diet] results in a reduction of both systolic and diastolic BP [blood pressure] in overweight middleaged men and women. If the results of our study are reproduced by other studies, advice for high dairy intake may be added to treatment and prevention of high BP.”

Funding: “Supported by the Public–Private Partnership Topconsortium voor Kennis en Innovatie (TKI) Agri & Food (TKI-AF-12104).”  FrieslandCampina, a Dutch multinational dairy cooperative, is part of the partnership.  Two of the authors are employed by FrieslandCampina.

Comment: As I discuss in Unsavory Truth, research like this has a high probability of producing biased results.  I’m reserving judgment about dairy foods and blood pressure until results like these are confirmed by independent research.