I keep saying that food companies are not social service or public health agencies and should not be viewed as such.  They are businesses, and everything they do must aim to promote sales and returns to investors.

BakeryandSnacks.com, an industry newsletter to which I subscribe, has collected several of its articles on the anti-hunger activities of its member companies.  Is this public health or public relations?  Read and decide.

• Editor’s Spotlight: The food companies committed to fighting world hunger: World hunger remains a persistent crisis, with approximately 842 million people going hungry every day. We look at the bakery and snack giants that are leading the fight against hunger and malnutrition. Read more
• Cereals on-demand: UN to pilot ‘game-changing’ Food ATMs for African refugees: The United Nation’s World Food Program (WFP) and World Vision International (WVI) are planning to pilot automated teller machines (ATMs) in refugee camps in East Africa, which dispense locally sourced foods like cereals; much like a banking ATM dispenses cash. Read more
• Consumer watchdogs call out Kellogg’s for allegedly slashing fortification in Mexican children’s breakfast cereals: Three consumer watchdogs contend that Kellogg’s has allegedly removed essential micronutrients in its breakfast cereals sold in Mexico, despite 1.6 million children in the country suffering from chronic malnutrition. Read more
• Researchers develop disease-resistant climate-smart grains to help eradicate poverty in Africa: The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) says it foresees rolling roll out new varieties of drought- and disease-resistant grains to African farmers next year to increase food security in the region. Read more
• Calling for entries: General Mills launches second Feeding Better Futures Scholars Program: General Mills is again calling on young innovators across North America for solutions on hunger relief, food waste and sustainable agriculture. Read more
• Call to action: FAO places nutrient-rich millets center stage to boost global innovation: The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has approved India’s proposal to observe 2023 as the International Year of Millets. Read more
•  Kellogg’s partners with global food banks to get the most needed foods to people in need: Kellogg is collaborating with Feeding America and The Global FoodBanking Network to make it easier for people to fight hunger by donating the foods hungry families request most from food banks across the globe. Read more
• Cereal giants Kellogg, Post and General Mills partner with Walmart to #fighthunger: Kellogg Company, Post, PepsiCo, Unilever, General Mills and ConAgra Foods are some of the suppliers to have joined with Walmart in its ‘Fight Hunger. Spark Change’ program in the US and Puerto Rico. Read more

As I may have mentioned previously, I have trouble understanding the ins and outs of trade policy.  Fortunately, I subscribe to Politico Morning Agriculture, whose writers are diligent in sorting out the complexities of what our government is doing with respect to trade and what it means.

Here’s what Politico is saying about our current trade dispute with the People’s Republic of China.

In a recent article,  Politico  reports a steady decline in American agricultural exports to China.  The figures are startling:

• 2019: $6.5 billion
• 2018: $16.8 billion
• 2017: $21.8 billion

These figures are from USDA’s latest Outlook for Agricultural trade.

Much of the drop is in soybean exports:  US farmers shipped $17 billion worth of soybeans worldwide in 2019, down from $21.6 billion last year.  Shipments to China accounted for much of the difference.

The US usually runs an agricultural trade surplus (we sell more abroad than we import).  The USDA says the trade surplus is $8 billion in 2019, down from $15.8 billion in fiscal 2018 and $21.1 billion in fiscal 2017.

Politico also reports that the Trump Administration is doing what it can to relieve the pain experienced by US soybean producers [pain that the administration’s policies caused in the first place].  It has promised between $15 billion and $20 billion in bailouts.

The real burden will fall on taxpayers and heartland farmers.

If the president moves ahead with 25 percent tariffs on everything China exports to the United States, it could amount to a tax hike of more than $2,000 on the average American family, swamping the reduction they won from Trump’s signature legislative achievement — the 2017 tax law.

The pain will be felt most acutely by lower-income voters who rely on cheap imports and Midwestern farmers who make up critical slices of Trump’s political base and will help decide the outcome of the 2020 election.

As to who is responsible for this mess?  According to Politico again, “China says U.S. ‘solely to blame’ for collapse of trade talks.”

How will this end?  Badly for U.S. agriculture, I’m guessing.

We need a rational food policy in this country, big time.

Reference: Agricultural Economic Insights on implications of the trade war with China

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, research is pouring in (see below) about the benefits of avoiding consumption of ultra-processed foods, those that are more than minimally processed and contain added sources of calories, salt, and color, flavor, and texture additives.

Since ultra-processed foods are among the most profitable, the makers of such foods wish this term would disappear.  Hence, this paper.

Julie Miller Jones.  Food processing: criteria for dietary guidance and public health? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2019), 78,4 –18

Conclusions: “No studies or β-testing show that consumers can operationalise NOVA’s [the non-acronym name given to this food classification system] definitions and categories to choose nutrient-rich foods, to eschew foods of low nutritional quality and improve diets and health outcomes. Further, there are significant concerns about NOVA’s actionability and practicality for various lifestyles, skillsets and resource availability.

Financial Support: The staff from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, ASN [American Society for Nutrition], IFT [Institute of Food Technologists] and IFIC [International Food Information Council] assisted with the planning and facilitation of the conference calls and with the review and editing of the manuscript. No specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was received for the development of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: Julie Miller Jones is a scientific advisor to the Grains Food Foundation, The Healthy Grains Institute (Canada), Quaker Oats Advisory Board, and the Campbell Soup Company Plant and Health Advisory Board. She has written papers of given speeches for Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico), Cranberry Institute, and Tate and Lyle.

Comment: What most disturbs me about this review is its sponsorship by two major U.S. nutrition societies, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and ASN, whose first goal ought to be promoting public health.  Instead, they speak here for the food industry [I devote chapters to both organizations in Unsavory Truth].

The other two groups would be expected to support food-industry marketing objectives.  The IFT is the trade association for food scientists; it works for the food industry.  The IFIC Foundation positions itself as “dedicated to the mission of effectively communicating science-based information on health, nutrition and food safety for the public good” but is sponsored by food companies; this makes it a front group for the food industry.

Two more papers finding benefits for the ultra-processed concept just appeared in the BMJ.  These are discussed and cited here.

I love blueberries and grow two different kinds on my 12th-floor Manhattan terrace, both delicious if I can get to them before the voracious birds do.

I wish the blueberry industry could just accept delicious and leave it at that, but no such luck.  It is desperate to get research it can use to promote blueberries as a superfruit (I wrote about the history of blueberry-funded research in Unsavory Truth).

Here’s the latest.

The study: Blueberries improve biomarkers of cardiometabolic function in participants with metabolic syndrome—results from a 6-month, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.  Peter J Curtis, et al. Am J Clin Nutr 2019;109:1535–1545.

Method: Participants were fed powdered blueberries equivalent to a half or full cup a day, compared to placebo.

Conclusions: Despite insulin resistance remaining unchanged we show, to our knowledge, the first sustained improvements in vascular function, lipid status, and underlying NO [nitric oxide] bioactivity following 1cup blueberries/d. With effect sizes predictive of 12–15% reductions in CVD risk, blueberries should be included in dietary strategies to reduce individual and population CVD risk.

Funder: Supported by the US Highbush Blueberry Council (USHBC) with oversight from the USDA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, UK). AC and ERB both act as advisors to the USHBC grant committee. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

Comment: The press picked this one up:  “Study: Blueberries benefit heart health.”  This study used powdered blueberries.  Trust me, the fresh ones are much better.  You can tell this is an industry-funded study because the published study is open access, which somebody has to pay for—a clue that it is about marketing.  And what about the comment that funders had no influence?  They didn’t have to.  The study did not compare blueberries to any other fruits.  The science here provides some interesting information about how anthocyanins in this fruit might work, but wouldn’t they work the same way in any other fruit?  Are blueberries the only fruit that contains these particular anthocyanins?   This questions suggest that this study is not about the science, it is about demonstrating that there is something special about blueberries.  Dietary advice?  Eat whatever fruits you like.  And vegetables.  And nuts.  They all have something good about them.

Mark Schapiro.  Seeds of Resistance: The Fight to Save Our Food Supply.  Hot Books, 2018.

I never think much about seeds, but this book makes it clear that I and everyone else should be giving them a lot of thought.  Our food supply depends on them.  And they are under threat—by climate change, of course, but also by human carelessness and greed.

Schapiro covers the global seed territory—the U.S. and Norway, but also Iraq and Syria—from farms to seed banks.   He has much to say about corporate control of the seed supply.

With every passing day and with nearly every accumulating study, GMOs are looking less and less like the “significant equivalent” to conventional crops that they were declared to be more than two decades ago.  It can cost upwards of $130 million to develop a genetically engineered seed, which is one reason why their expansion into the food system has been accompanied by a tightening control over seeds.  The expense and complexity of producing genetically engineered organisms, and the aggressive patent prerogatives needed to defend them, led to a concentration of power within a secretive group of companies over the most basic element of our existence–seeds, and the food from which they grow.  All these factors have pushed us toward a food system that is less diverse, more insecure, and delivering increasingly consequential environmental costs [p. 90].

Fortunately, he also has much to say about many different kinds of efforts to defend and rescue our seed heritage, seed libraries, for example:

As one local seed company after another were snapped up by chemical companies, the libraries are part of a growing parallel movement that’s been pulling in the opposite direction, away from homogenization and toward diversifying local seed stocks and strengthening the role of farmers, not companies, in sustaining them.  Since 2010, more than four hundred of such libraries, of various sizes, have opened in the United States.  They’re now in every region of the country, one of the multiple edges of a rapidly growing movement [p. 103].

There’s hope, but we need to act now.

All of us are entering uncharted territory…When it comes to food, the most essential of all resources, the stories contained in our seeds are posing the same question to all of us: Should we hitch our food security, and the food security of future generations, to seeds bred and marketed by three multinational chemical companies? [150-151].

This is a particularly useful book about an important issue.  It also comes with lists of seed resources, advocates, trade associations, and the like, as well as references.

NutraIngredients.com, one of those informative industry newsletters I subscribe to, has a collection of articles on CBD (cannabidiol, the component of hemp and marijuana that does not make you high but may have some health benefits).

Manufacturers are rushing to produce CBD edibles and supplements, despite concerns about their legal status, as you can see here.

• CBD startup’s mission to become ‘the Unilever of the Cannabis industry’: The founders of a British CBD tea startup are on a mission to become ‘the Unilever of the cannabis Industry’ with truly natural and organic innovations to appeal to the ethos of cannabis consumers… Read
• Germany identified as future pacesetter in buoyant European CBD market: The European cannabidol (CBD) market is set to blossom over the next four years, according to a market intelligence firm, who also predict that Germany’s growth will outpace that of other EU countries… Read
• CBD trade group mounts legal action to challenge possible FSA reclassification: A trade association for the UK’s cannabis industry announces its intentions to sue the country’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) over moves to classify cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products as a ‘novel food.’.. Read
• Hemp world takes steps toward legitimacy, but still has need for growth: The hemp and CBD industry seems to be taking a step toward ‘adulthood,’ based on a visit to a recent expo… Read
• Flood of synthetic cannabinoids threatens to undermine CBD market, experts say: The hemp/CBD industry is being threatened by so-called synthetic cannabinoids that are flooding the market, attendees at a recent botanicals conference were told… Read
• CBD regulation: Global clampdown or treading a careful path to acceptance?  The interest in cannabidiol (CBD) use in food supplements, foods, and even as an ingredient in cosmetics has gained much momentum in the past five years, but what is the regulatory situation around the world?.. Read
• ‘Think of yeast as a factory…’ Microbial fermentation can deliver CBD with consistent purity at a lower cost, says Demetrix: While some natural products brands are only interested in CBD from hemp or marijuana plants, the market for cannabinoids produced via microbial fermentation is potentially huge, as the pesticide-free process delivers higher yields and consistent purity at a “substantially lower cost,” claims one company on a mission to lead this emerging field… Read
• Updated EC ruling for CBD classes supplement ingredient as Novel Food: The European Commission (EC) has reclassified cannabidiol (CBD) as a Novel Food in a change that may mean CBD and hemp-derived food supplements cannot be legally sold within Europe… Read
• Indecision reigns over current CBD Novel Food status as industry groups clash with authorities: Evidence presented at the Novel Food Commission meeting this week has triggered a rethink for authorities over the decision to classify Cannabidiol (CBD) as a novel food (NF)… Read
• CBD frustration: Aussie supplement firms thwarted by rules while pharma advances march on: Pharmaceutical firms are making strides in the Australia’s medical cannabis space, but supplement and nutraceutical firms will have to wait a long time before they can do the same, says an industry expert… Read

And from this and other sources

• Will CBD-infused snacks help Mondelēz regain traction in its developed markets?  The multinational snack maker is in the early stages of assessing how CBD could fit into its future product portfolio, according to CEO Dirk Van Put… Read
• Supplements and beyond: CBD industry on cusp of cannabis revolution.  WATCH.
• CBD entering food and drink at an “astounding pace,” report says.
• Supplements and beyond: CBD industry on cusp of cannabis revolution – WATCH: The European Commission’s decision to classify cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products as a ‘novel food,’ continues to irk those in the sector as the nutrition industry gather once more for Vitafoods… Watch now
• Mexico’s cannabis future? Right now it’s a ‘standby situation’, says expert: The future of cannabis in foods and supplements remains unclear for Mexico following the revocation of guidelines without any next-step plan, but a new regulatory instrument should come soon, says the MD of DPE International Consulting… Read
• Could CBD supplementation help curb heroin cravings?  Cannabidiol (CBD) might have a role in helping to break the cycle of heroin addiction, according to research from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York… Read
• FDA’s Cannabis hearing to draw more than 140 speakers.
• ‘The landscape for cannabis in food’  An educational session at this year’s Sweets & Snacks Expo on the interest in cannabis-derived products came with a warning from the organizers that exhibitors were not allowed to sell any such products, which shows how controversial a trend it is. A panel of experts attempted to pick their way through the legal minefield… Read

One of the daily newsletters I subscribe to is Chuck Abbott’s Ag Insider, sponsored by the Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN), which covers and analyzes agricultural policies otherwise unknown or incomprehensible to readers like me.  You can subscribe to it here.

The particular article that caught my eye is about how Trump’s program of compensating farmers for the losses caused by his trade war with China has gotten the government much deeper into supporting Big Ag than some congressional representatives think is appropriate.

The USDA has stated that it will spend $15 to $20 billion on trade mitigation payments this year.  This will pay $2 a bushel for soybeans, 63 cents a bushel for wheat, and 4 cents a bushel for corn.

If you were a farmer, which would you plant?

The promised new payments will

double the $8.5 billion that has been paid so far on 2018 production of almonds, cotton, corn, dairy, pork, soybeans, sorghum, sweet cherries, and wheat. And the $15-$20 billion would be on top of $11.5 billion previously forecast for federal payments this year. Last year, direct farm payments totaled $13.8 billion, largest in 12 years, because of trade mitigation aid.

This is big money, at taxpayers’ expense.

Abbott’s point is that the “Freedom to farm” act of 1996 encouraged farmers to make planting decisions based on market prices rather than expectation of subsidies, and to reserve part of their land for conservation purposes.  Farmers were able to sell their crops for market prices rather than have the government buy them.

But the USDA says

Farmers should continue to make their planting and production decisions with the current market signals in mind, rather than some expectation of what a farming support program might or might not look like, based on inaccurate media stories.

And guess what: The National Corn Growers Association wants higher payments.

In other articles in this series, Abbott reports that “more than a third of net farm income for Kansas farmers comes from Trump tariff payments, but that won’t make up for lost export sales.”

The reasons behind the Trump Administration’s efforts to relocate the USDA’s Economic Research Service out of the Washington DC area are becoming increasingly transparent: the administration views the conclusions of ERS research on SNAP and other key issues as incompatible with its agenda.

I wrote about the real reasons behind the proposed transfer in a post on September 21 last year: 

Former [ERS] officials were unanimous in arguing that the proposal to relocate the agency outside of Washington DC and reorganize it into the USDA Secretary’s office was “ill-conceived,” made no sense, was done without appropriate consultation, was potentially illegal, would politicize the agency, and would damage, if not destroy, an agency that is the jewel of USDA. The USDA says the reasons for doing this are easier recruitment, cheaper rent, closer alignment with the Secretary’s policy initiatives, and getting the agency closer to stakeholders.  None of these bears up under even the most casual scrutiny. So what is this really about? I’m guess that this is about getting political control over—silencing—an agency that conducts independent, unbiased, nonpartisan research that risks leading to inconvenient truths.

Now, ERS employees are coming forward to state publicly that they view the transfer “as a crackdown on research that’s unflattering to White House policy priorities.”

According to Politico, ERS personnel have done an analysis of which researchers are being told to stay in Washington, DC, and which ones are being told to move.  The ones being transferred out

are largely specialists in issues like climate change, food stamps and trade policy, where economic assessments often clash with White House policies.  The list, shared exclusively with POLITICO, shows a clear emphasis was placed on keeping employees in Washington whose work covers less controversial issues like crop planting over those whose research focused on areas sensitive to the administration….USDA released a written statement from Perdue arguing the relocation is not connected to the work being carried out by ERS economists. The secretary has long said the move will save taxpayer money and bring the agencies closer to major farming regions.

Some members of the House of Representatives are trying to block the relocation but even if they can, it will be too late.  By the time any legislation gets passed, the move will already have been accomplished and key ERS researchers long gone.

Eight Democratic senators led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) co-sponsored a measure that would prevent ERS and NIFA from being moved.  Van Hollen is also trying another route: Politico reports that he has  put a hold on the nomination of Scott Hutchins to be USDA’s chief scientist…”to indicate the seriousness of Van Hollen’s concerns about the proposed relocation.”

In the meantime, everyone is waiting to see where USDA intends to move the ERS.  The options are Kansas City, the Research Triangle in North Carolina and multiple spots in Indiana.

Whatever happens, the damage has been done.  Many ERS researchers have retired or resigned.

This agency produced authoritative analyses of food and nutrition issues that I relied on for much of my work.  This is an incalculable loss. and nothing less than a national tragedy.