A Gallup poll reports the percentages of vegetarians and vegans in America.

• 5% of Americans say they are vegetarians, unchanged from 2012
• 3% say they are vegans, little changed from 2% in 2012

You are more likely to say you are vegetarian or vegan if you are:

• Younger (18-49) rather than older
• Make less than $30,000 a year
• Liberal (11%) rather than conservative (2%)

Want to see how they got these numbers or argue with the results?  The methods are here.

The Washington Post reports that the USDA has committed about $5 million of bailout funds to buy 1.8 million pounds of pork products from the Brazilian meatpacker, JBS.

The bailout funds were supposed to help U.S. commodity producers who lost sales because of the tariff disputes with China.

JBS is the biggest meat seller in the U.S. It employs 73,000 people here.

Maybe the USDA thought it was an American company?

Globalization in action…

I’ve long argued that the most intellectually challenging issue in the field of nutrition is finding out what people eat.

Here’s what it takes:  Using DNA technology, investigators examined the stomach contents of the “Iceman,” a man who died 5300 years ago but was frozen in the Alps until his body was discovered some years ago.

The result: “a remarkably high proportion of fat in his diet, supplemented with fresh or dried wild meat, cereals, and traces of toxic bracken.”

A recent radiological re-examination of the Iceman, a 5,300-year-old European natural ice mummy, identified his completely filled stomach (Figure 1A) [2]…Previous isotopic analysis (¹⁵N/¹⁴N) of the Iceman’s hair suggested first a vegetarian lifestyle [12, 13] which was later, after careful re-examination of the data, changed to a omnivorous diet [14]. Further analyses of lower intestinal tract samples of the Iceman confirmed that he was omnivorous, with a diet consisting of both wild animal and plant material. Among the plant remains, there were cereals, pollen grains of hop-hornbeam, and fragments of bracken and mosses [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]… In summary, the Iceman’s last meal was a well-balanced mix of carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids, perfectly adjusted to the energetic requirements of his high-altitude trekking.

Nearly half (46%) of the bulk stomach contents consisted of animal fat, much of it saturated.  This, apparently, had consequences:

computed tomography scans of the Iceman showed major calcifications in arteria and the aorta indicating an already advanced atherosclerotic disease state [33].

Fascinating, no?  Now if we could do this kind of analysis on a population basis, think of the questions we could finally answer!

You must not be chewing enough gum.  Mars-Wrigley wants you to chew more of it.  How best to do that?  Fund research (for evidence, see my most recent book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat).

Citation: A 3-month mastication intervention improves recognition memory, by Curie Kima, Sophie Miquelb and Sandrine Thureta. Nutrition and Healthy Aging xx (2019) x–xx (in press).

The study:  “53 participants aged 45–70 years old were required to chew mint-flavoured sugar free chewing gum for 10 minutes, 3 times a day over 3 months. Pattern separation and recognition memory was measured using the Mnemonic Similarity Task. Questionnaires were administered to measure changes in mood, anxiety, and sleep quality.”

Results: “Extended periods of mastication gave rise to a significant improvement in recognition memory compared to a non-chewing control group.”

Funding: “This work was supported by Mars Wrigley Confectionery.”  “SM is an employee of Mars Wrigley Confectionery (Chicago, IL). The chewing gum used for the intervention was provided by Mars Wrigley Confectionery.”

Comment: This industry seems to be working hard to convince you that chewing gum is good for you; this is the second time I’ve posted an industry-funded study (here’s the first).

Maybe I would remember names and faces better if I chewed gum?  Sugarless, of course.

Daniel Imhoff with Christina Badaracco.  The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide.  Island Press, 2019.

I wrote the Foreword for this book, a revised, updated, and even more fabulously illustrated version of the previous editions.  Here’s what I said:

In 2011, I had the bright idea of teaching a graduate course on the farm bill to food studies students at New York University.  As happens every four years or so, the bill was coming up for renewal and I thought it would be useful for the students–and me–to take a deep dive into what it was about.  I knew help was available.  Dan Imhoff had laid out the issues with great clarity in his first book about this bill in 2007.  I used it as a text.

I wrote about this experience in “The farm bill drove me insane” (Politico, March 17, 2016), which it most definitely did.  The farm bill is huge, encompassing more than a hundred programs, each with its own acronym and set of interested lobbyists.  The bill is unreadable, consisting mainly of amendments to previous bills; it is comprehensible only to lobbyists, a precious few congressional staffers, and occasional brave souls like Imhoff willing to take it on.  It costs taxpayers close to $100 billion a year; most weirdly, 80 percent of this money covers the costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) which is stuck in the farm bill for reasons of politics.  The farm bill represents pork-barrel, log-rolling politics at its worst.

Imhoff explains the bill as a fully rigged system gamed by Big Agriculture in collusion with government.  The public pays for this system thrice over: at the checkout counter, in subsidized insurance premiums, and for cleaning up the damage it causes to health and the environment.  Despite these scandalous costs, the mere mention of the words “farm bill” makes eyes glaze over.  Why?  This is a forest-versus-trees problem.  The bill—the forest–is far too big and complicated to grasp.  We try to understand it by looking at the programs–the trees–one by one.  Hence: insanity.

Imhoff’s approach to the forest is to focus on the overriding issues that farm bills ought to address.  A rational agricultural policy should promote an adequate food supply while protecting farmers against uncertain climate and price fluctuations.  It should promote the health of people and the environment and do so sustainably.  And it should provide incentives for people to farm and ensure a decent living for everyone involved.  But instead the farm bills encourage an industrial agricultural system incentivized to overproduce corn and soybeans to feed animals and to make ethanol for automobiles, to the great detriment of public health and environmental protection.

Nowhere are these problems more obvious than in the debates about the 2018 farm bill.  As I write this, the House is working on a bill that seems less protective of health and the environment than any previous version.  To cut costs while maintaining support of Big Agriculture, the House aims to reduce SNAP enrollments, eliminate conservation requirements, and cut out even small programs that support small farmers or promote production of fruits and vegetables—“specialty crops” in USDA parlance.

At this moment, the outcome of the 2018 bill is uncertain, but The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide has a more generic purpose—to introduce readers to the big-picture issues.  Imhoff relates the history of farm bills, their origins and subsequent growth.  Imhoff describes the system: how Big Agriculture works, how food stamps ended up in the bill, what all of this means for farming and food assistance, and what kind of legislation is needed to promote a healthier food system.

We should, Imhoff insists, rework the farm bill to promote public health by supporting an agricultural system that grows food for people rather than animals and cars.  We should legislate that crops be grown sustainably so as to reduce agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, soil losses, and water pollution.  Imhoff suggests twenty-five solutions to current agricultural problems.  These should be required reading for anyone who cares about what we eat, today and in the future.  It is too late to fix the 2018 farm bill, but there is plenty of time and opportunity to make the next one a true citizens’ farm bill.  To quote Imhoff: “it’s time to question whether the industrial mega-farm model is the only way to feed a growing global population, or whether it’s even possible for such a system to survive without costly government supports and unsustainable environmental practices.”  His book should inspire better, smarter solutions.  Get busy.

–New York, May 2018

I love coffee (preferably not over-roasted) and have long been convinced that it is not a health risk (more on that in the comment below).  But a miracle drug?

As I discuss in Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat, industry-funded research almost invariably produces conclusions that favor the sponsor’s marketing interests, as this one does.

Title: Consumption of a dark roast coffee blend reduces DNA damage in humans: results from a 4-week randomised controlled study  Dorothea Schipp, Jana Tulinska, Maria Sustrova, Aurelia Liskova, and 10 others.  European Journal of Nutrition, published online 17 November 2018.

Purpose: “To determine the DNA protective effects of a standard coffee beverage in comparison to water consumption.”

Conclusions: “Our results indicate that regular consumption of a dark roast coffee blend has a beneficial protective effect on human DNA integrity in both, men and women.”

Funding: “This study has been supported by Tchibo GmbH, Hamburg, Germany” [Tchibo is a German coffee company].

Conflict of interest: “D. Schipp is a self-employed statistician, who has been appointed and financed by Tchibo GmbH for this and other projects.”

Comment: this study was designed to demonstrate coffee’s protective effects, and did so.  Here’s what I wrote about coffee in What to Eat:

There is something abut coffee–perhaps just the caffeine–that makes researchers try hard to find something wrong with it.  My files are full of papers claiming that coffee raises the risk for heart disease, heartburn, cancer, infertility, fetal growth retardation, spontaneous abortion, breast lumps, osteoporosis, ulcers, and any number of other health problems, but the observed effects are so small and so inconsistent that the studies are not very convincing.  Instead, well-designed studies tend to show no harmful effects…Complicating an overall assessment of the health effects of coffee are studies showing the benefits of drinking it…As with so many studies of foods and health, research on coffee and health is hard to do.

Bottom line: If you like drinking coffee, enjoy.

Thanks to Daniel Skavén Ruben for sending this one.

It never occurred to me that we needed more research to prove that advertising to kids makes them want food products, pester their parents to buy the products, say they like the products, and actually eat the products.

That was the conclusion of a hugely important study from the Institute of Medicine in 2006.

You can download that report from the link.  It’s still worth reading.

Obviously, the points it made still need reinforcing.  Hence: this study.

Exposure to Child-Directed TV Advertising and Preschoolers. Intake of Advertised Cereals. Jennifer A. Emond, Meghan R. Longacre, Keith M. Drake, et al.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine, December 17, 2018.

The authors measured whether exposure to TV advertisements for kids’ breakfast cereals affected pre-schoolers’ intake of those cereals.

No surprise.  It did.

In this figure, the dots to the right of the vertical line indicate increased intake of the cereals after exposure to the ads.

I’d say the ads are doing what marketers hope they will do (except for Honey Nut Cheerios).  Ads for Cocoa Pebbles and Fruity Pebbles seem particularly effective.

The authors point out that food companies say they are no longer marketing to children under the age of six.  Obviously, they still are.

This is what parents are up against.  What to do?

Turn off the TV!  Call for regulation!

I don’t usually pay attention to what the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH) says or does, mainly because it is a long-standing front group for the food and chemical industries, and it predictably supports the interests of those industries over public health (see US Right to Know’s analysis).

But then I read this from the Center on Media and Democracy: Corporate Front Group, American Council on Science and Health, Smears List of Its Enemies as “Deniers for Hire.”

Smeared by the site are scientists Tyrone Hayes, Stephanie Seneff, and Gilles-Éric Séralini; New York Times reporter Danny Hakim and columnist Mark Bittman; well-known food and science writer Michael Pollan; nutrition and food studies professor Marion Nestle; public interest groups like U.S. Right to Know, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, the Environmental Working Group, and Union of Concerned Scientists; past and present CMD staff, and many other individuals ACSH does not like.

Clearly, I’m in good company.  But what, exactly, have I—a “Crankster,” apparently—done to deserve this honor?  It seems that I:

• Support organic foods. Yes, I do.  They are far better for the environment.  I explain why I favor organics in my book, What to Eat (2006).
  
• Express concerns about the safety of glyphosate.  Guilty as charged, and I’m not the only one; the International Agency for Cancer Research says glyphosate (Roundup) is likely to be carcinogenic.
• Joined in attacks on Kevin Folta: Sorry—this one baffles me.  I don’t recall ever commenting on Dr. Folta or his work (he’s mentioned on this site once, in a list of documents obtained by the New York Times).  Perhaps ACSH is referring to my concerns about the aggressive tactics of the GMO industry and its supporters, which I wrote about in detail in my book, Safe Food (2003). 
• Express concerns about food chemicals.  I am indeed concerned about these chemicals, especially with respect to increasing evidence that they harm soil, beneficial insects (bees in particular), and, perhaps, humans. 
• Express concerns about the role of the food industry in promoting unhealthful products. Also, guilty as charged. I write carefully referenced books on this topic, particularly Food Politics (2002) and Soda Politics (2015).  
• Express concerns about industry funding of nutrition research. That’s the topic of my most recent, also extensively referenced, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

What can I say?  Read my work and decide for yourself if such concerns are justified.