“In a way, it wouldn’t take much marketing to target this group.”

That’s me, they are talking about.

As a senior citizen, I am deluged with scam requests to fix my Apple computer (I don’t have one), unblock my Social Security checks (they are fine), and deal with my failure to pay appropriate taxes (I do).

Now I’m the target of sellers of functional foods?  Apparently so, says this video.

Functional foods, please recall, are those formulated with added nutrients or other components said to improve health in some way.  You can think of them as dietary supplements added to foods.

Like dietary supplements, functional foods don’t have much evidence backing up their health benefits, particularly because they are largely consumed by people who are already healthy.

Do they do anything beneficial for the elderly?  Show me the evidence, please (and make sure the studies you show me were not funded by the makers of the products that are supposedly beneficial).

The purpose of functional foods?  Marketing, as all of this makes clear.

 VIDEO: 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. Read more

I included a chapter on sugar and dental disease in my 2015 book, Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), because billions of people have decayed teeth and other dental problems that could have been kept intact by dental hygiene, fluoride treatment, or—consuming less sugar or sugary drinks.

But:

• Dental disease has a long history of being overlooked as a public health problem.
• Sugar has a long history of being ignored as a cause of dental disease.

This may now be changing.

The Lancet has a new series on oral health:

It’s great that The Lancet has finally taken this on.

Here’s The Guardian’s Account.  There should be a lot more press coverage.  Dental conditions affect billions of people throughout the world.

Thanks to Elaine Watson at FoodNavigator-USA for writing about Coca-Cola’s efforts to get the FDA to let it put vitamins in its drinks.  OK, its “healthier” drinks.

Historically, the FDA discouraged (putting it mildly) makers of candy and other junk foods from adding vitamins so they could be marketed as “healthy.”  This was known as the “jelly bean rule.”   Vitamins could not be added to jelly beans—or Coca-Cola.

It’s not really a formal rule, but here’s what the FDA says in 21CFR104.20:  ​​

The Food and Drug Administration does not encourage indiscriminate addition of nutrients to foods, nor does it consider it appropriate to fortify fresh produce; meat, poultry, or fish products; sugars; or snack foods such as candies and carbonated beverages.

But what about the exceptions?

• Gummy Bears: vitamins are be added to gummy bears, but these are typically sold as dietary supplements, not foods. They can do this because the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 authorized much looser rules for supplements.  Even though gummy bears are candy, the FDA isn’t going to fight this one.
• Glaceau Vitamin Water:  Coca-Cola now owns this company. Some Vitamin Waters have as much sugar as a Coke.  They have Nutrition Facts labels and are marketed as foods, and look to me to be in violation of the jelly bean rule,.  The FDA hasn’t done anything about them, even though they are vitamin-enriched sugar water.  If you have any idea why not, please tell me.

For decades, Coca-Cola has tried to get the FDA to ease up on the jelly bean rule.  Now it is trying again.

Its argument?  The rule, by not allowing the addition of vitamins to sugary teas and coffees, stifles innovation.

Its assurance?  It won’t add vitamins to Coke, but will add them to its other, presumably “healthier” (meaning, I suppose, less sugary) beverages.

As I wrote earlier, candy makers are trying this trick too.

I wonder how long the FDA can hold out on this one.  I wish it luck.

Replacing Saturated Fat With Walnuts or Vegetable Oils Improves Central Blood Pressure and Serum Lipids in Adults at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Controlled‐Feeding Trial.  Alyssa M. Tindall, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2019;8:May 7, 2019.

Conclusions: “Replacing saturated fatty acids (FAs) with 57 to 99 g/d of walnuts for 6 weeks reduced central diastolic blood pressure compared with a diet similarly low in saturated FAs but with lower α‐linolenic acid content…This study represents a feasible food‐based approach for replacing saturated FAs with unsaturated FAs (including α‐linolenic acid) from walnuts and vegetable oils, demonstrating that relatively small dietary changes can reduce cardiovascular risk.

Funding: This study was funded by the California Walnut Commission…The California Walnut Commission provided funds for the research conducted. The commission’s staff was not involved with any aspects of conducting the study, analyzing the data, or interpreting the results reported in this article.

Comment: Walnuts, like pretty much all other nuts and seeds, contain healthy fats and other nutrients.  When substituted for unhealthier foods, they would be expected to demonstrate improvements.  This study contributes no new information and there is only one reason to do it: marketing (as I discuss in Unsavory Truth).  The California Walnut Commission wants you to eat more walnuts.  Trade associations or producers of pecans, macadamia nuts. pistachios, almonds, peanuts, hazelnuts, and any other nut you can think of have the same goal.  Do they all have to do this kind of research?  Apparently so.

Mixed nuts, anyone?

Every now and then I run into an excellent source of information about things I know nothing about.  I’ve just discovered Purdue University’s Ag Economy Baromoter, which tracks the opinions of producers of corn and soybeans.

Big Ag feels pretty good about current agriculture and trade policies, probably because USDA’s agricultural support system ihistorically has been firmly rigged in their favor.

If Purdue asked small and medium-sized producers, it might get a different stiory.

BakeryAndSnacks.com’s Special Edition: Snackex 2019 introduces the concept of “Snackification,” which as far as I can tell is the conversion of three square meals a day to all-day snacking.  Alas, snacks have calories; the more snacks the more calories consumed.  And most are ultra-processed, the term used to describe foods that are best consumed in small amounts.   The more snacks consumed, the happier the snack-food industry will be.  Hence: the push.

• BakeryandSnack Chat Podcast: Everything you need to capitalize on the rise of snackification:  Sebastian Emig, director general of the European Snacks Association, outlines the upcoming Snackex – held every second year – that congregates the entire value savory snacks chain in one place… Listen now     
• How to capitalize on tomorrow’s snackification opportunities:  If you play in the snacking arena, you are urged to register for Snackex 2019 to fully understand the dramatically changing snacking landscape… Read
• Bell’s snack seasoning portfolio addresses consumer cravings for experimentation:  For the upcoming edition of Snackex – being held in Barcelona, Spain, on June 27 and 28 – Bell Flavors & Fragrances EMEA will be showcasing snack seasonings focused on the arising foodie culture, which addresses the current consumer crave for experimentation… Read
• Debut appearance for Brazilian peanut exporters at Snackex 2019:  Under the auspices of the Brazilian Chocolates, Peanuts and Candies Manufacturers Association (ABICAB), four Brazilian peanut producers will be showcasing their products at Snackex in Barcelona, Spain, on June 27 and 28… Read  
• Chilli & lime: Griffith Foods’ low sodium snack solutions pack a punch:  The Griffith approach – ‘To blend care and creativity to nourish the world’ – has over the past century distilled into a solid track record of innovation, new products and bespoke solutions… Read  
• The future of snacking revealed:  GoodMills Innovation has invested extensively in cereal ingredients that provide snacks with additional health benefits to enable producers to keep ahead of the rapidly changing snacking scenario… Read  
• Eggs and India: Visitors invited on a unique taste journey with ManeMane – a leading manufacturers of flavors, ingredients and fragrances – is bringing a touch of India to Snackex 2019… Read

High marks to the The Wall Street Journal for its story about the externalized costs of agricultural runoff into the Mississippi River.

The article is interactive.  Take a look.

It traces how agriculture pollutes 2300 miles of the Mississippi river from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. through a “”journey downriver [that] reveals how the agricultural industry is contributing to one of the nation’s biggest ecological disasters.”

Every summer, nutrients from the Mississippi pour into the Gulf, fueling algae blooms that starve the water of oxygen and kill sea life. Heavy rainfall throughout the Mississippi River watershed this spring led to record-high river flows, boosting nitrate and phosphorus loads. As a result, scientists predict this year’s “dead zone” will total 7,829 square miles, an area roughly the size of Massachusetts, and close to the record set in 2017.

The pollution starts in Minnesota, and you can see where it comes from.

Along the way, nitrates accumulate in the water.  Iowa alone releases hundreds of thousands of tons of nitrates into the Mississippi every year.

The externalized costs?

• For communities along the way, it’s loss of potable water, construction of plants to remove nitrates from the water, dependence of bottled water, and higher water costs overall.
• For the Gulf of Mexico, it’s a enormous dead zone that prevents fishing and recreation.

Do the polluters pay?  No.  Taxpayers do.  That’s why the costs are called “externalized.”

No wonder Big Ag opposes environmental regulations.

I recently received an email from a public relations representative of Soylent, the company that makes those powdered meal replacements.  My NYU department once conducted a Soylent tasting. Our conclusion: it may meet nutritional requirements, but it tastes like uncooked pancake batter.

Soylent is pushing hard to get its products into your hands.

Hence the PR announcement that Soylent was donating 100,000 meal replacement packages to New York City’s Island Harvest Food Bank and City Harvest, “as part of their #SoylentForGood initiative.”

Donating Soylent to Food Banks?

Food Banks accepting donations of Soylent?

I had trouble getting my head around this so I wrote the PR person to check whether the donations were Soylent products or real foods and meals.

Soylent, of course.

Making sure that hungry people get fed is unarguably a Good Thing, but needs consideration about choice, dignity, the kind of society we want to live in, and, not least, food quality.

Soylent as a means to feed the hungry?

The mind boggles.