Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Sep 23 2019

Industry-funded study of the week: Almonds

Title: Almond Consumption and Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Lee-Bravatti MA, et al.  Adv Nutr. 2019;00:1–13

Method: The authors selected studies that had compared lab values of adults who consumed almonds with those who did not.  They found significant reductions in some—but not all—CVD risk factors among the almond eaters.  The almond eaters, for example, had lower total cholesterol levels and lost weight during the trials.

Conclusion: “Almond consumption may reduce the risk of CVD by improving blood lipids and by decreasing body weight and apoB [apolipoprotein B].”

Funding: “Supported by the Almond Board of California…The funder did not have a role in the study selection, quality assessment, data synthesis, or manuscript preparation.”

Author disclosures:  GR was a consultant for Porter Novelli; EJJ received funds from the Almond Board of California for a clinical trial at the time of the study. MAL-B, JW, EEA, and LK, no conflicts of interest.

Comment: I like nuts and am especially partial to marcona almonds, but I wish the almond industry would stop trying to prove that almonds can perform health miracles. I can easily see why substituting almonds for ultraprocessed junk foods would help reduce markers of CVD risk, calories, and weight: people who eat junk food consume more calories and are more likely to be obese.  This study set a standard of 42.5 grams of almonds a day, roughly 1.5 ounces  and 200 calories.  But are almonds superior to other nuts?  The Walnut Commission would argue otherwise, as would the Pecan Growers’ Association.  The Almond Board may say it has nothing to do with the study, but it doesn’t have to.  Its funding is sufficient to exert influence even if investigators don’t realize it, as I discuss in Unsavory Truth.

Sep 20 2019

Weekend reading: the state of obesity

Trust for America’s Health has just published its annual report on obesity, state by state.

As the home page puts it, “U.S. Obesity Rates Reach Historic Highs – Racial, Ethnic, Gender and Geographic Discrepancies Continue to Persist.”

The press release has an even more pointed headline: “U.S. Obesity Rates at Historic Highs – Nine States Reach Adult Obesity Rates of 35 Percent or More.”

The report highlights that obesity levels are closely tied to social and economic conditions and that individuals with lower incomes are more at risk. People of color, who are more likely to live in neighborhoods with few options for healthy foods and physical activity, and, are the target of widespread marketing of unhealthy foods, are at elevated risk.

What to do?

The report calls for sugary drink taxes, expanded SNAP and WIC Nutrition support programs and a built environment that encourages physical activity.

Buried in the report are suggestions for curbing food-industry marketing and other efforts to undermine public health initiatives.

  • Keep industry out of dietary guidelines.
  • Consider regulating food-industry marketing.
  • Stop industry from preempting state public health laws.
  • Reduce unhealthy food marketing to children.

Lots of good stuff here and well worth a read.

Sep 19 2019

Eating insects: everything you want to know and more

I can’t say that I am particularly interested in eating insects but I know there is a lot of interest in them as an alternative food source, and I was intrigued by a story about a new guide to labeling insect-based foods.

Since the link given for this publication does not seem to work, I went to the website of the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF), an organization I am happy to know about.

IPIFF is “the voice of the insect sector in the European Union.”  It represents  52 small and medium-sized producers of insects for the European market.  Who knew?

Its mission:

to promote the wider use of insects as an alternative or new source of protein for human consumption and animal feed through continuous dialogue with the European institutions. Notably, IPIFF centres its activities around advocating for appropriate EU legislative frameworks to apply to insect production.

Its publications are here.

Want to know more about insects in human nutrition?  Try this:

Interesting, no?  I’m happy to know about this site.

Tags:
Sep 18 2019

In New York? See Super Size Me 2 and eat at Holy Chicken

I went to see Morgan Spurlock’s film Super Size Me 2 (Holy Chicken) at New York City’s Cinema Village where it is playing only at 11:00 a.m. and 11 p.m.  You also can watch it online (more on its distribution later).   Disclosure: I was interviewed for this film a couple of years ago and appear in a short clip (so short that I am not mentioned in the credits).

I also went to the pop up restaurant, Holy Chicken, at 22 West 23rd Street.  It’s only open until Sunday.  If you would like to see it—and you should—go now.

From my food politics point of view, the film is a must-see.  It is a compelling, beautifully photographed, disturbing, cynical, utterly devastating account of industrial chicken production.

If for no other reason, go see it for its portrayal of the truly disgraceful tournament system that Big Chicken uses to play the farmers who actually raise the chickens.  The companies provide all inputs to the farmers, but pay them according to an easily manipulated formula that rewards some and punishes others.  This system externalizes all of the production risk to farmers, keeps them in debt, and punishes them for attempts at independence.

The restaurant illustrates the film’s major messages.

The servers wear the messages.  I snagged this tee shirt.

The walls are covered with messages.  This one is about what happens to farmers.

My favorite is the back of the tray liner, which comes with crayons for kids to color.

This is a movie that needs to be seen.  So why the limited distribution?  Spurlock confessed his MeToo behavior toward women.  In the aftermath, his distributors pulled out, he resigned from his company, and its release has been long delayed.  Complicated, no?

Sep 17 2019

Natural Products Expo: all boxes checked

I was fortunate to be able to attend the Natural Products Expo East in Baltimore on Saturday and worth the trip it was.

Here is where to see—and taste—what’s happening in health foods: ultra-processed (drinks, crackers, puffs) and not (nut butters, smoked fish).

Impressions

This is a huge market: the exhibits took up three full floors of two buildings in the convention center.  I think I only managed to wander through about half of them.

The big news is hemp.  An entire section of one of the floors was devoted to CBD oils, pills, and balms, but hemp booths were also scattered throughout.  I didn’t see many edibles—just a few gummy bears.

The buzz words are “all boxes checked.”  I heard this many times.  My favorite example: hemp water (“hydrate your body to the fullest”).  Here’s its list:

  • All natural
  • No artificial flavors
  • No THC
  • No preservatives
  • Gluten free
  • Dairy free
  • Sugar free
  • Sodium free
  • Zero calories
  • Non-GMO
  • Vegan

Everyone wants to get into Whole Foods.  When I asked small producers where I could find their products, one after another said this.

Plant-based products are on the move.  I tried oat- and coconut-based ice creams (not bad, but still can’t compete with the 17% fat dairy versions, alas).

Sep 16 2019

Industry-funded study of the week: whole grains

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 (= 19) and postmenopausal women (= 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.

Sep 13 2019

Weekend reading: how farm subsidies really work

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.

Sep 12 2019

FoodNavigator-USA’s articles on food litigation

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 

Tags: