Here is a summary of another funded study with results the funder must love.

Joint associations between weekday and weekend physical activity or sedentary time and childhood obesity.  Li N, and 19 additional authors for the ISCOLE Research Group. International Journal of Obesity (2019) 43:691–700.

Conclusions: Lower levels of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity] or higher levels of sedentary time on either weekdays or weekend were associated with increased odds of obesity in 9–11 year old children in 12 countries.

Funding: The International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE) was funded by The Coca-Cola Company… With the exception of requiring that the study be global in nature, the funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Comment: This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain.  Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.  Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake.

I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.  In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, “not the other way around.”

He also questions the “no influence” statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of

emails between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.

As I discuss in Unsavory Truth, the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.

As I also discuss in that book, Coca-Cola generously funded the ISCOLE study some years ago.  It has since changed its policy on research funding.

The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has a new report out on Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030.

In the next decade, the major goals for food and agricultural research include (1) improving the efficiency of food and agricultural systems, (2) increasing the sustainability of agriculture, and (3) increasing the resiliency of agricultural systems to adapt to rapid changes and extreme conditions.

To that end, the committee that wrote this report examined “breakthrough opportunities that could dramatically increase the capabilities of food and agricultural science.”

The breakthroughs?

1. A systems approach to understand the nature of interactions among the different elements of the food and agricultural system can be leveraged to increase overall system efficiency, resilience, and sustainability.
2. The development and validation of precise, accurate, field-deployable sensors and biosensors will enable rapid detection and monitoring capabilities across various food and agricultural disciplines.
3. The application and integration of data science, software tools, and systems models will enable advanced analytics for managing the food and agricultural system.
4. The ability to carry out routine gene editing of agriculturally important organisms will allow for precise and rapid improvement of traits important for productivity and quality.
5. Understand the relevance of the microbiome to agriculture and harness this knowledge to improve crop production, transform feed efficiency, and increase resilience to stress and disease.

I’m worried about how all this will help make agricultural production more sustainable.  For that, we need smaller scale, fewer chemical inputs, crop rotations, and other such methods.  I wish NASEM would do a serious study on agricultural sustainability.

Update, May 26: Benjamin Chaulet has translated this into French and posted it on his blog, nutrition-newage.com. Here is a pdf.

I’m trying to keep up with what’s happening with Cannabis edibles and drinkables, still with borderline legality in most places, but gradually working their way to supermarkets near you.

Here’s what’s come up lately.

• The FDA is calling a public hearing on May 31 and asking for comments on Cannabis products.
• The Washington Post discusses the messy regulatory situation.
• Cannabidiol (CBD), extracted from hemp, does not have the psychoactive properties of marijuana.
• The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the raising of hemp, which contains CBD.
• On the local level: regulators in different agencies view regulation in different ways.
• On the global level: different countries are handling regulation of these products in different ways.
• CVS will be selling CBD products as over-the-counter drugs.
• As for edibles, CBD-infused water is predicted to be the big seller.
• The Sacramento Bee reported what happens when kids get into their parents’ marijuana edibles; it called for childproof packaging.
• A video from Fresno County shows unlicensed marijuana edibles, some of which look like candies aimed at children.
• The FDA will hold a public hearing on the safety, manufacturing, quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of Cannabis products on May 31.

And then there are the health claims.  As early as 2017, the FDA sent out warning letters to makers of CBD products; they were marketing their products as drugs not supplements or foods.

For example, the FDA sent a letter to That’s Natural, complaining that the company published testimonials saying things like this:

• “Scientific research by doctors have shown it actually kills cancer cells and provides a protective coating around our brain cells.”
• “as a Type 1 diabetic, my blood sugars have noticeably leveled off.”
• “My blood pressure and heart rate have also significantly improved as well.”

The FDA also sent a letter to Green Roads of Florida objecting to claims like these:

• “CBD .[has] anti-proliferative properties that inhibit cell division and growth in certain types of cancer, not allowing the tumor to grow.”
• “Almost all studies recognize CBD’s potential in preventing both cancer spread and growth…”
• “The following are some of the many ailments CBD oil can potentially be therapeutic for:  asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, autism, bipolar disorder, various types of cancer….

Food, medicine, supplement, or snake oil?  We shall see.

I am occasionally asked to comment on new studies that appear.  Practice Update: Diabetes asked for a comment on this study:

VS Malik, et al.  Long-Term Consumption of Sugar Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults. Circulation. 2019;139:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037401

The study concluded: “Consumption of SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages] was positively associated with mortality primarily through CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality and showed a graded association with dose. The positive association between high intake levels of ASBs [artificially sweetened beverages] and total and CVD mortality observed among women requires further confirmation.”

Here’s what I said:

This study is based on analyses of data from two remarkably large and long-standing investigations of diet and disease risk. The investigators looked for correlations between mortality and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and found them. More than two SSB servings a day was associated with higher mortality, particularly from cardiovascular disease, and, to a lesser extent, cancer.

Thus, this study adds to the increasing body of evidence associating SSBs with poor health. SSBs provide calories, but nothing of nutritional value. Other studies correlate SSBs with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. A further correlation with increased mortality is not surprising, but it is good to have it confirmed.

These results associate high intake of SSBs with disease risk, but cannot prove that SSBs causedisease. Epidemiological studies like these, based on self-reported dietary data, require careful interpretation. In part, this is because intake of SSBs tracks closely with other lifestyle characteristics. Heavy SSB users tend to be more sedentary, more likely to smoke, to consume more meat and calories, but to eat fewer vegetables than light users—overall, to have less healthy dietary habits in general. Still, reducing or eliminating SSB intake is harmless and could well improve health.

This is one of an ongoing series of examples of how industry funding skews, or to be more precise, is strongly associated with skewing, of research and opinion about matters of diet and health.

This example is an analysis of the scientific rigor of dietary approaches to controlling type 2 diabetes through diet.  The authors looked at the evidence for efficacy of the DASH, Mediterranean, Plant-Based, and Low-Carb diets.

Improving the Scientific Rigor of Nutritional Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes: A Comprehensive Review of the American Diabetes Association Guidelines Recommended Eating Patterns.  Hallberg S, Dockter NE, Kushner J, Athinarayanan S.  Preprints 2019.  Online March 5.  doi: 10.20944/preprints201812.0187.v2

Conclusion: “Our review of the current Standards and Recommendations finds significant shortcomings regarding scientific review methodologies, which are likely to translate to suboptimal clinical care decisions for patients with T2D.”  The study dismisses most studies of the DASH, Mediterranean, and Plant-based diets as poorly done or otherwise inappropriate for their review.  For the DASH diet, it says more research is needed.  It calls for more research on whether the benefits of Mediterranean diets are due to low carb or healthy fats, and suggests that the benefits of plant-based diets may be due to weight loss.  The best evidence supports the Low-Carb diet: “Evidence from 30 trials and 10 follow-up studies demonstrates that a low-carbohydrate diet is an effective dietary approach for addressing dyslipidemia.”

Conflict of Interest Statement:  SJH is an employee and shareholder of Virta Health, a for-profit company that provides remote diabetes care using a low-carbohydrate nutrition intervention, and serves as an advisor for Atkins Corp.  NED is a paid consultant for Virta Health.  JAK serves as medical director of McNair Interests, a private equity group with investments in type 1 diabetes and other chronic illnesses, and is also an advisor for Sanofi and Lexicon.

Comment:    All authors are employed by or consult for a company that uses low-carb dietary approaches in its for-profit business.  As I explain in Unsavory Truth, the influence of industry funding is often unconscious, unintentional, and unrecognized.  Nevertheless, the opinions of the authors can be predicted from their financial connections to Virta Health.

The George Institute in Australia (see clarification below) publishes an annual index holding the ten largest U.S. food and beverage corporations accountable for how they addrss nutrition challenges.

The 2018 Index ranks corporations on their governance, products, accessability, marketing, lifestyle, labeling, and engagement.  Here’s what it looks like.

Here’s how this is explained:

Seven out of ten companies claim to focus on improving health and nutrition (all except Coca-Cola, Dr Pepper Snapple and Kraft Heinz), as expressed in their mission statements or corporate growth strategies, the objectives they defined related to health and wellness are mostly limited to product development, product reformulation and responsible marketing. Only two companies (Nestlé and Unilever) have defined a more comprehensive set of objectives within their nutrition strategy.

To remind you: food corporations are not social service or public health agencies.  They have stockholders to please as their first priority.  The conflicts of interest with public health approaches are obvious.  That’s why none of them does particularly well on this Index.

Clarification from a reader

I believe you are referring to the US Spotlight Index, a product of the Access to Nutrition Foundation, an independent nonprofit in the Netherlands.  (https://www.accesstonutrition.org).  The George Institute provided research support for the US Spotlight index. RWJF [Robert Wood Johnson Foundation] was a major funder.  The Foundation has also published an India Spotlight Index (2016) and a Global Index (latest in 2018).  Shiriki Kumanyika chairs the Expert Group.

The British Parliament has just rejected the plan for Brexit for the third time, and the EU has just extended the exit deadline until October 31.i

The British food industry is understandably worried about what Brexit, whenever it happens, will mean for supply chains and sales.  Large percentages of British food are imported from the EU, something likely to become more difficult and expensive after Britain’s withdrawal.

I’ve been collecting items on the topic from Food-Navigator.com and other sources.

• • • Food sector slams ‘confusing and complex’ no-deal Brexit tariffs: Food makers have hit out at the tariff system the UK government has said it will adopt in the event of a no-deal Brexit as “confusing and complex”. Read more
    • No-deal Brexit threat: Gove admits ‘no absolute guarantee’ food trade with EU will continue: The UK has said it will extend the deadline on some food policy consultations as Environment Secretary Michael Gove admits a no-deal exit from the EU could see an immediate halt to food trade with the bloc. Read more
    • Concerns remain over ‘hassle and extra cost’ following UK no-deal Brexit labelling advice:  The UK has issued guidance to food businesses on what they will need to include on labels if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement on 29 March. Read more
    •  No-deal Brexit and food prices: How much will it push up the average basket?  There is broad agreement that a no-deal Brexit will result in higher UK food prices – but what does this mean for the average family? Read more  
    • Brexit: The best and worst-case scenarios: The fresh food sector may well be the hardest hit when the UK withdraws from the EU, with a no-deal Brexit potentially costing the UK food industry €1.3bn, according to market research provider, Euromonitor International… Watch now
    • Withdrawal agreement defeat leading to catastrophic Brexit: The defeat of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement in parliament last week could be leading the UK toward a catastrophic exit from the EU, warned the head of the National Farmers Union… Read
    • Meat industry issues Brexit warnings: The British Poultry Council (BPC) has called on the Government to ensure that the population continues to have access to quality food once the UK leaves the EU… Read
    • Europe is ready for food safety, post Brexit. The European Commission has said it is prepared for the impact a no deal scenario in the Brexit negotiations would have on food safety. The United Kingdom held a referendum in June 2016 and voted to leave the European Union, a move that became known as Brexit. This was supposed to happen at the end… Continue Reading

I thought this was an April Fool joke, but apparently it’s for real.  According to The Guardian (and many other sources), Burger King will be serving this plant-based meat alternative.

Much has been said in favor of and opposed to the Impossible Burger.

I give Tamar Haspel credit for the most cogent comment: