I’ve been collecting items about plant-based “meat” and “dairy foods.”  These are a hot topic, with new announcements almost daily.

Here’s what FoodNavigator-USA.com has collected in a Special Edition

• Talking protein with Glanbia Nutritionals: It’s a time of trial and experimentation: Is the protein craze fizzling out? Not if you look at new product launch data, or the fact that producers of both plant and dairy proteins are continuing to add capacity, and consumers are continuing to experiment with new sources, from marine collagen to sacha inchi, points out Max Maxwell, market analyst at Glanbia Nutritionals… Read
• ADM: ‘We’re very confident that our pea protein will have some competitive advantages’: ADM – which is best known in the protein arena for its soy-based ingredients and edible beans – is moving into the fast-growing pea protein space early next year with an 80%+ concentrate, and is developing “legume ingredients with at least 80% protein as well.”.. Read
• Perfect Day partners with ADM to commercialize animal free dairy proteins: Perfect Day, a high-profile Silicon Valley start-up producing casein and whey via microbial fermentation (minus the cows) has teamed up with global ingredients giant ADM to develop and commercialize its animal-free dairy proteins… Read
• San Diego start-up develops algae production platform capable of producing proteins found in bovine and human breast milk: A San Diego-based firm building a production platform for food proteins from green algae says it can produce recombinant proteins identical to those found in bovine and human breast milk, which it claims could prove a game changer in the infant formula market… Read
• Geltor raises $18.2m, gears up for 2020 launch of animal-free collagen proteins for the food industry: Geltor – a San Leandro-based start-up producing collagen proteins via microbial fermentation for the cosmetics industry – is gearing up for the 2020 launch of commercial quantities for the food industry after completing an $18.2m Series A round led by Cultivian Sandbox Ventures and supported by GELITA, ADM Ventures, Cavallo Ventures and Box Group… Read
• Peas please! Where next for pea protein? Once a niche ingredient, pea protein is now the #2 player in the burgeoning plant-based protein market behind soy, with key players ratcheting up capacity to meet growing demand. FoodNavigator-USA (FNU) caught up with Tyler Lorenzen (TL), president at PURIS, the largest North American producer of pea protein, to talk peas….. Read
• New Chinese pea protein plant will boost availability of higher quality pea protein in 2019, says Farbest: Farbest Brands has been named the preferred North American distributor of pea protein by Chinese manufacturer Jianyuan Foods Group, which will start commissioning a new production facility in the coming weeks that will provide “a significant increase in pea protein supply for Farbest customers beginning in 2019.”.. Read

And here are a bunch I’ve picked up here and there:

• Dairy UK objects to a vegan shop’s use of the word “cheese” to describe its products.
• The National Milk Producers Federation has petitioned the FDA to label plant-based products as “imitation,’ “alternative,” or “substitute,” when referring to what their makers have been calling “milk.”  The petition is here.
• The food processor ABP UK is coming out with new products made with pea and soy proteins formulated to “appeal to meat reducers and non-meat eaters alike.”
• Tyson’s, as Big Meat as they get, has announced that it is investing in plant-based meat.
• Good Karma is launching plant-based sour cream, ranch dips, and French onion dips.
• Plant-based vs traditional meat: Euromonitor offers four-year outlook: Despite the rapid growth of the meat alternative sector, market research firm Euromonitor has revealed that there is still a way to go to compete with some of the major international meat markets… Read
• State ag officials warn cell-based meat companies against demonizing traditional options (behind a paywall)

I will be keeping an eye on this area, where a lot seems to be happening, and fast.

Seafood fraud, long a problem (I wrote about it in What to Eat), is still a problem.  The latest evidence comes from a report from the New York State Attorney General.

Investigators tested fish and found widespread mislabeling of just about every type of fish except striped bass.

I wish the figure displayed percentages instead of absolute numbers, but you get the idea.  Examples:

• Lemon sole       87.5%
• Red snapper     67.0%
• “Wild” salmon  27.6% (in quotes because some was farmed)

Overall, the investigation found 27% of seafood purchases to be mislabeled.  Some conclusions:

• Mislabeling was worse at some supermarkets more than others; for example, five chains had mislabeling rates of 50% or higher.
• Some fish are mislabeled more than others, especially lemon sole, red snapper, and grouper.
• Substitutes were cheaper, less desirable fish, sometimes with higher levels of mercury.
• Mislabeling was common throughout the state, but the mislabeling rate for New York City was nearly 43%.

If ever there was a call for caveat emptor, this is it.

What to do?  Ask.  Complain. Demand regulation.

I’ve been giving talks lately on how to strengthen the food movement and my two-word answer is this: build coalitions.

The food movement includes thousands of organizations working on food issues.  For real power, those organizations need to unite around common goals.

At a recent talk in Berkeley, I was asked if I could name some food movement coalitions.  I had trouble thinking of any, but the audience popped up with suggestions and I’ve added a couple more.

• California Food and Farming Network is dedicated to advancing state policies that are rooted in communities, promote fairness and racial equity, secure financial prosperity and advance environmental sustainability.  It tracks legislation and publishes a scorecard.  50 member groups.
• La Via Campesina: 182 organizations in 81 countries advocate for peasants’ rights, food sovereignty, and social justice and oppose corporate-driven agriculture that destroys social relations and nature.
• National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity (NANA):  Its more than 500 organizations advocate for policies and programs to promote healthy eating and physical activity.
• National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition: Its 120 member groups advocate for federal policy reform to advance the sustainability of agriculture, food systems, natural resources, and rural communities by supporting small and mid-size family farms.
• Rural coalition: “Our mission is to build an equitable and sustainable food system that is beneficial to people of color, small farmers, rural and tribal communities.”  50 member groups.

If you know of others, please let me know at marion.nestle@nyu.edu.  I will be tracking these.

The next step: a union of coalitions?

The study: Assessing the in vivo data on low/no-calorie sweeteners and the gut microbiota.  Alexandra R. Lobacha, Ashley Roberts, Ian R. Rowland. Food and Chemical Toxicology 124 (2019) 385–399.

Its conclusion: “The sum of the data provides clear evidence that changes in the diet unrelated to LNCS [low- and no-calorie sweeteners] consumption are likely the major determinants of change in gut microbiota numbers and phyla, confirming the viewpoint supported by all the major international food safety and health regulatory authorities that LNCS are safe at currently approved levels.”

Funding disclosures: Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy (A.R.L. and A.R.) received financial support from the Calorie Control Council to assist in the preparation of the manuscript. The Calorie Control Council did not contribute to the origination, planning, implementation, or interpretation of this work. The Calorie Control Council did review the content of the complete manuscript; however, A.R. maintained responsibility for the final content.

Comment: Artificial sweeteners are widely suspected on the basis of questionable evidence to be harmful in one way or another.  The industry that makes these sweeteners wants to prove them safe and effective.  This was a literature review commissioned by the Calorie Control Council, a trade association for the makers and users of artificial sweeteners, from Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy, a group that does this kind of work.  I would be more confident in conclusions like these if they had been arrived at independently.

Nestle M.  Foreword to Sheldon Krimsky.  GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic’s View of Genetically Modified Foods.  MIT Press, 2019.

You might notice that I wrote the Foreword to this book.  Here’s what I said:

GMO’s Decoded is a gift to anyone confused about genetically modified foods.  In this latest addition to Sheldon Krimsky’s prolific output of books about how societies interact with new technologies, he takes on a formidable challenge–to examine the science of GMOs as a basis for dealing with the ferocious politics they incite.  I use “ferocious” advisedly.  Positions about GMOs appear polarized to the point of outright hostility.  Krimsky wants détente.   If we understood the science better, we might be able to achieve more nuanced views of the risks and benefits of GMOs and of the genetic techniques used to create them.

To anyone familiar with Krimsky’s previous and ongoing work, this book may come as a surprise.  Trained in physics and philosophy, Krimsky is a sharp critic of the role of technology in society with particular interests in the ethical implications of genetics and biotechnology and in risk communication.  I have long admired his work for its firm grounding in science and its clear delineation of the ways in which political, cultural, and other societal factors color perceptions of the safety and other risks of new technologies.

In GMO’s Decoded, Krimsky takes a deep dive into the science of food biotechnology on its own, separate from issues related to how the science is used by the companies producing and profiting from GMOs, or is interpreted by proponents, critics, or the general public.  An attempt to discuss the science of GMOs distinct from its politics may appear foolhardy, if not impossible, and Krimsky deserves much praise for taking this on.

I speak from experience.  My book about food biotechnology, Safe Food, first published in 2003, began with a reference to C.P. Snow’s two-culture problem—what Snow called the “gulf of incomprehension” between scientists and nonscientists over matters of technological risk.  To greatly oversimplify: scientists argue that if GMOs are safe, they are fully acceptable and no further criticism is justified.  But to nonscientists, safety is only one of many concerns about GMOs and not necessarily the most important.   Holders of this broader view argue that even if GMOs are safe, they still may not be acceptable for reasons of ethics, social desirability, unfair distribution, nontransparent marketing, or inequitable and undemocratic control of the food supply.

What I observed in discussing those issues, and continue to observe, is the discounting of anything other than safety by extreme proponents of GMOs who perceive even the slightest question about nonsafety issues as an attack on the entire industry.  This has forced critics of GMOs to focus on safety issues rather than the far less quantifiable issues of social desirability, pushing critics into positions that deny the possibility of any benefit of GMOs.  The result: Snow’s gulf of incomprehension.

Is the gulf bridgeable?  Krimsky argues yes.  From the perspective of the science, GMOs can either benefit or harm society.  It behooves us all to try to understand what the science is about as a basis for coming to more informed opinions about the uses, value, and risks of GMOs—the politics.

But before getting to what Krimsky does in this book, I want to make one point about GMO politics: the GMO industry brought the polarization on itself.  As I explained in Safe Food, the first GMO food, the FlavrSavr tomato, was intended to be marketed transparently as a triumph of American technological achievement (I still have itss label in my files).  British supermarkets sold tomato paste prominently labeled as genetically modified without opposition.  That changed under industry pressure for nondisclosure.  I was a member of the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee in 1994 when the agency ruled against labeling GMOs, despite evidence that trust requires transparency.  The GMO industry fought labeling then, and won, and continues to spend fortunes fighting labeling.

The industry also promised that food biotechnology would feed the world and create new foods that would solve problems for the developing world, such as those able to withstand poor soil conditions, excessive heat, and limited water.  But instead, the industry concentrated on far more profitable insect- and herbicide-resistant first-world crops, a strategy criticized for the effects on society of its monoculture, patented seeds, heavy use of herbicides, herbicide-resistant weeds, and destruction of beneficial insects.  The potential for foods with consumer benefits remains, but has been largely unrealized.  Trust requires fulfilled promises.

As readers of Krimsky’s previous books surely know, he cares about such issues and others related to the politics of GMOs and their societal impact.  But in this book, he wants readers to realize that the risks and benefits of GMOs depend on understanding the state of their science.  Here, he takes on the scientific questions, one by one, clearly and dispassionately.  This must have taken courage and a great deal of work.  The science of GMOs is complicated and occurs at the level of molecules–DNA, RNA, and protein, of course, but also a host of less familiar molecules responsible for making genetic modifications work.

Fortunately, Krimsky writes clearly and succinctly about such things, his descriptions are easy to follow, and he defines terms as they are needed.  He begins by asking whether GMOs differ from foods produced by traditional breeding and if they do, whether the differences matter.  He wants to know how GMOs affect health and the environment, whether they really are more productive than conventional crops, and whether they use fewer pesticides and herbicides.  He asks whether they GMOs have nutritional or other benefits for consumers, and whether and how they should be labeled.  He deals with these questions in short chapters, along with others, that examine methods and risk assessment, review what expert committees say about such matters, and use Golden Rice as a case in point.

Krimsky’s presentation of the divergent viewpoints about what the science means is exceptionally fair and even-handed.  He insists that:

“This book is not about taking sides.  My experience in studying scientific controversies that have public policy implications is that there are often truths, falsehoods, exaggerations, assumptions, fear-mongering, and uncertainties in the claims found on multiple sides of an issue.  This book will succeed if it…demystifies the science and shows where there is consensus, honest disagreement, or unresolved uncertainty. ”

I think it succeeds admirably.  Krimsky is straightforward about his own assessments.  For example–spoiler alert—he concludes that evidence supports a qualitative difference between traditional and molecular breeding of food plants.  On other questions, when he assesses the science as inconclusive, he says so.  He wants readers to understand the complexity of the scientific issues, to be skeptical of arguments from either extreme in the debates, and to adopt nuanced positions on GMOs.  Some aspects of GMOs may be worth opposing, but some may well be worth promoting.  We all need to know the difference.

Krimsky tells us that in researching this book, his own positions became less polarized and more nuanced.  Reading it, mine did too.  Now it’s your turn.

–Marion Nestle, New York, August 2018

At last, an explanation of the effects of Brexit on the British economy that I can understand: a Pringle shortage!

The New York Times helpfully reports

Very late in the process, the USDA and HHS have finally announced the membership of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee for 2020:

Today the Secretaries of USDA and HHS announced 20 nationally recognized experts who have been selected to serve on the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

The independent Advisory Committee will review the scientific evidence on topics from the Departments and provide a report to the Secretaries that, along with public and agency comments, will help inform USDA and HHS’s development of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

• See the list of members [this includes explanations of how they were selected]
• View the topics and scientific questions that will direct the Advisory Committee’s work.
• Learn more and stay connected with us at DietaryGuidelines.gov.

I know several of the members.  I served with Barbara Schneeman on the 1995 DGAC, for example.

Some members have financial ties to food companies with deep interests in the what the guidelines say.  This is despite the agencies’ statements that

The vetting process also included a background check by the USDA Office of the Secretary to determine if any of the candidates have a financial, ethical, legal, and/or criminal conflict of interest that would prohibit them from serving on the Committee…Each Committee member submitted a financial disclosure report prior to appointment and will continue to do so annually thereafter. Each report was reviewed by USDA ethics officials for financial conflicts of interest and compliance with Federal ethics rules.

Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich asked groups to say who they nominated to the committee.  What she found is here, but behind a paywall.  I’ve added the information from these lists in red.  She is still trying to find out who nominated the others.

• Jamy Ard, MD – Wake Forest University
• Regan Bailey, PhD, MPH, RD – Purdue University, Department of Nutrition Science Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• Lydia Bazzano, MD, PhD – Tulane University  Atkins Nutritional
• Carol Boushey, PhD, MPH, RD – University of Hawaii  National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• Teresa Davis, PhD – Baylor College of Medicine
• Kathryn Dewey, PhD – University of California, Davis
• Sharon Donovan, PhD, RD – University of Illinois
• Steven Heymsfield, MD – Louisiana State University American Beverage Association
• Ronald Kleinman, MD – Harvard University
• Heather Leidy, PhD – University of Texas National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• Richard Mattes, PhD, MPH, RD – Purdue University Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, PhD, RD – University of North Carolina
• Timothy Naimi, MD – Boston University
• Rachel Novotny, PhD, RDN, LD – University of Hawaii
• Joan Sabaté, DrPH, MD – Loma Linda University
• Barbara Schneeman, PhD – University of California, Davis  American Beverage Association
• Linda Snetselaar, PhD, RD – University of Iowa Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• Jamie Stang, PhD – University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology & Community Health Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• Elsie Taveras, MD, MPH – Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard Chan School of Public Health
• Linda Van Horn, PhD, RDN, LD – Northwestern University

As for transparency:

Helena Bottemiller Evich (@hbottemiller) tweeted at 11:36 AM on Fri, Feb 22, 2019:
Everyone says they want a “more transparent” Dietary Guidelines process, but the minute I ask for who X group nominated to be on DGAC food/ag/health groups are like https://t.co/6J8GJnGpD7
(https://twitter.com/hbottemiller/status/1099030227009835008?s=03)

Overall, this looks to me like any other DGAC except that there are twice as many members as in the past.

Their job is to review the research and write a report.  The agencies write the guidelines.

I will be following all this with great interest, as always.

I love avocados and think they—like all fruits and vegetables—are just fine to eat.

But avocado trade associations want us to eat more avocados.

A reporter sent me correspondence from an executive from a public relations firm that must represent some such trade association.  Over a period of about a month, the PR person sent the reporter four emails.  Here is message #4:

Subject: New avocado research just in time for American Heart Month

Sorry for the nudge – I just wanted to check in one more time to see if you’re working on any heart health related stories in which avocados could be a fit. If so, I thought your readers may find this research helpful. Either way, please let me know and I will stop bugging you ?

The previous three messages extolled the heart-healthy benefits of eating avocados and offered to connect the reporter to a dietitian (identified by name) “for a phone or email interview to discuss this further and answer any questions.”

None of the messages stated who the PR firm or dietitian were working for.

But take a look at the research article.

The study’s conclusion: “Incorporating fresh Hass avocados in meals can help people achieve dietary recommendations to eat more fruits and vegetables and simple substitution strategies with avocados for carbohydrates can add to the nutrient diversity of the diet and potentially have important cardio-metabolic benefits worthy of investigating further.”

No surprise: “This research was supported by the Hass Avocado Board, Irvine, CA, USA.”  One of the authors “is a member of Avocado Nutrition Science Advisory.”

The reporter’s response to all this, and I quote: “AAAAHGGHGHGH.”

Mine too.