Really?  Cannabis Canada reports that Coca-Cola is seriously considering going into the cannabis business.

Get high on Coke?  No such luck.

The sources said that Coca-Cola (KO.N), the world’s largest beverage company, is interested in developing beverages that are infused with cannabidiol, commonly referred to as CBD, the non-psychoactive chemical found in marijuana plants.

Non-psychoactive?  What’s the point?

Oh.  I get it.

Estimates vary, but the consumer CBD market is estimated to grow to US$2.1 billion by 2020, from $202 million in 2015, according to a recent report in the Hemp Business Journal…The company behind such drinks as Diet Coke, Sprite and Minute-Maid juice reported annual revenue of US$35.4 billion in 2017, down 15.5 per cent from the prior year, which has spurred the company to search for growth in international markets and new beverage concepts such as an alcoholic offering that’s only available in Japan.

Cannabis as the solution to Coca-Cola’s loss in sales?

My question: will there be low-sugar options?

While we are on the topic of Cannabis edibles:

California reports that its tests of nearly 11,000 marijuana products found nearly 20%—including cookies, candies, and other edibles—to have higher-than-allowed levels of pesticides, E. coli, and salmonella.

Caveat emptor.

I’ve been collecting items on concerns about the levels of arsenic in rice, especially rice cereals for children.

The arsenic problem

Arsenic is toxic.  It occurs in food and water in two forms:

Inorganic: a carcinogen and heart disease risk factor

Organic: less toxic, but still harmful

Infant rice cereals are a special concern because they are often the only cereals fed to infants, and arsenic adversely affects infant cognitive development.

How much arsenic is in rice cereal?

In January 2012, Consumer Reports found worrisome levels of arsenic in apple and grape juices.  It followed this with a November 2012 testing of more than 200 products which found measurable amounts of arsenic in every product category, and in both forms:

Further testing in 2014 confirmed these findings.  Because there is no safe level of arsenic, it’s best not to have any, let alone the amounts found in commonly consumed products.

But in March this year, a report from Healthy Babies/Bright Futures (HBBF) found six times more arsenic in infant rice cereal than in infant cereals made from other grains.

How does arsenic get into rice?

Soil and water naturally contain arsenic, but humans also add arsenic to soil through agricultural pesticides (now supposedly banned) and other sources.

Rice also absorbs more arsenic from soil and water than other grains, perhaps because arsenic resembles the silicon these plants need, but also because rice fields are often flooded to prevent weed growth.

What is being done about arsenic in rice cereal?

In 2016, the FDA proposed limits on arsenic in infant rice cereals, issued a call for public comments, and extended the comment period, but has yet to take action.

The agency’s web page on rice an rice products provides:

• Proposed Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Infant Rice Cereal (Draft Guidance for Industry)
• Action Level Supporting Document
• Risk Assessment: Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products

In March this year, the Government Accountability Office issued a report urging FDA to finalize its guidance (this provides an excellent and well referenced review of the arsenic-in-cereals situation).

The FDA has all the evidence it needs and it is difficult to understand what is holding up its action.  One can only assume politics, alas.

What should you do in the meantime?

It seems pretty obvious that infant rice cereals should be removed from the market unless they can show much lower arsenic levels.

Plenty of other cereals exist.  At this point, those are much better options.

Because our dysfunctional Congress did not pass the farm bill by midnight on Sunday, the 2014 bill has expired.

What does this mean?  Basically, the USDA hasn’t decided anything yet but a lot depends on the authorization status of each program (recall: the farm bill covers hundreds of programs).

• Programs with permanent budget authorization—SNAP and Crop Insurance, for example—keep going.
• Programs without authorization—the 40 or so “orphans”—terminate.
• Programs authorized by the farm bills of 1938 and 1949 that have been updated and modernized revert back to the rules for those those years—certain dairy programs are especially affected.

The Congressional Research Service has a quick summary of the implications of the non-passage of the farm bill.

As for why Congress couldn’t get this bill passed, the big barriers are SNAP and conservation.

Recall that SNAP, formerly food stamps, is in the farm bill as a result of classic logrolling in the Johnson era.  Johnson got legislators from farm states to vote for food stamps in return for votes from urban legislators for farm supports.  At the time, the food stamp program was piloted in 40 counties and 3 cities with a total of under 400,000 participants.  Its cost was a fraction of the total farm bill cost.

In 2017, SNAP had more than 42 million participants at a total cost in benefits and administration of $68 billion—nearly 80% of the total cost of the bill.

SNAP looks like a honey pot to legislators looking for funds to make up for the tax cuts.  They have proposed additional work requirements.

These are sure to reduce enrollments.  Mathematica Policy Research says the House farm bill (HR 2 (115)) would cause 2 million households to lose SNAP eligibility.

Conservation is another issue.  Senators write that they cannot support a farm bill that does not promote conservation.

New to the farm bill?  Want to find out more?

• Knowable Magazine’s Rachel Ehrenberg explains the farm bill’s role in health (I’m quoted).
• Ehrenberg’s article comes with a wonderfully illustrated timeline.
• The Sustainable Food Center tells you five things you need to know.
• The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition’s website is the place to go for deep information and analysis.

Coming October 30:  My new book about food company sponsorship of nutrition research and its effects on public health.

The Kirkus review (August 1)

A leading nutritionist asks whether consumers can trust highly publicized research into whether food and beverages are healthy and safely produced.

Nestle (Emerita, Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health/New York Univ.; Big Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), 2015, etc.), who has a doctorate in molecular biology and a master’s degree in public health nutrition and has conducted decades of research into food producers, is perfectly positioned for this topic. She makes the convincing case that because so much of the research is paid for by industries that benefit from the results, buyers should interpret the results skeptically. Many of Nestle’s previous books, articles, and academic studies focused on specific types of food. Here, the author turns her attention to large corporations, investigating why they pay for supposedly independent researchers, why the quality of the research might be compromised by conflicts of interests, how consumers can separate reliable science from compromised science, and why consumers should lobby legislators, government regulatory agencies, and universities for reforms regarding the disclosure of conflicts. Nestle emphasizes research paid for and disseminated by the sugar/candy industry, producers of dairy foods, marketers of meat, and—in its own chapter, “A Case Study in Itself”—the soda giant Coca-Cola. Since the author is a prolific nutrition researcher who has accepted funding that could involve conflicts of interest, she admirably scrutinizes her own policies of funding and how she discloses it. Ultimately, researchers must act as ethicists as well as scientists. When her own studies and those of fellow researchers become marketing tools for multinational conglomerates, the author admits that she feels queasy about how consumers might be misled by the marketing. On the other hand, she writes, some studies paid for by industry can be trusted scientifically—and be marketed and advertised responsibly.

Nestle proves yet again that she is a unique, valuable voice for engaged food consumers.

Other early reviews & interviews based on the bound galley proofs

Sept 25 La Stampa (Italy): “I cibi di lunga vita sono illusori e troppi sponsor li promuovono.”

Sept 24  Publishers Weekly: ” a groundbreaking look at how food corporations influence nutrition research and public
policy.”

Aug 13 Booklist review: “This well-documented, accessible venture makes a compelling argument.”

Aug 1  Kirkus review: “Nestle proves yet again that she is a unique, valuable voice for engaged food consumers.”

July 17  Phil Lempert’s Lempert Report: Get ready for a new era of transparency (video)

July 9  David Wineberg, “Nutrition: conflict of interest as a career,” Medium.com.

Feb 12 Finnish Public Radio interview about Unsavory Truth (Google Translate, English)

Jan 31 Profile in New Scientist: The Unpalatable Truth about Your Favorite foods

Elliot Coleman.  The New Organic Grower: A Master’s Manual of Tools and Techniques for the Home and Market Gardener.  30th Anniversary Edition.  Chelsea Green, 2018.

The first edition of this book came out in 1989 and it has been an essential tool for organic farmers and home gardeneres ever since.  Coleman’s goal is to make everyone want to farm organically.

“Small farms,” he begins, “are where agricultural advances are nurtured.”  And, he says, “I write only about those things I know.”

Fortunately, he knows a lot.  He knows about soil fertility, pests, weeds, crop rotations, agricultural craftsmanship, land, labor, marketing, and the economics of all of this.

His philosophy?  A pleasure to read.

Humans cannot imagine a world where they are not in charge.  As a biological farmer, I work in partnership with Nature, and I’m a very junior partner.  Given the limited amount of hard knowledge available, I often refer to my management style as “competent ignorance,” and I find that a very apt description.  But my level of trust in the design of the natural world and willingness to be guided by it is discomforting to those who think we should exercise total power over Nature…The reality of today’s world is that the practical success of the many farms managed on biological lines coexists with the striking lack of interest (antagonism actually) from scientific agriculture in exploring why these farms succeed.  The foundation upon which our Maine farm operates—a sense that the systems of the natural world offer elegantly designed patterns worth following—appears to be an indecipherable foreign language to most of agricultural science.

I signed a letter published in Le Monde on September 18:  La “lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles:” une urgence sanitaire mondial.  It is addressed to the The Third United Nations High-Level Meeting on Noncommunicable Diseases taking place in New York today.  Here it is in English translation.

The Fight Against Non-Communicable Diseases: A Global Emergency

Just 10 years ago, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria were the main worldwide threat for health. But today, Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, which only receive 2% of the total financing allocated by international health partners, constitute a health emergency in high-income countries and low-income countries alike.

Changes in food consumption and increasingly sedentary lifestyles have a strong impact on human health and the environment, and increase risks of developing NCDs. For over 10 years now, Non-Communicable Diseases have become the main causes of death in the world, leading to 15 million premature deaths every year.

Today, these changes in lifestyles are hitting hard low-income and intermediate countries. Contrary to common belief, a large number of inhabitants in West Africa are faced with overweight and obesity. Who could imagine that 38% of women of childbearing age there are already overweight and 15% are obese? The increase in the consumption of animal fats and industrial foodstuffs, combined with massive urbanization source of lifestyle change more conducive to NCDs,  are the causes of these epidemiological transitions.

The agri-food industry, the driver of these changes, has an impact on both human health and the environment. The intensification of production methods, the overconsumption of meat, the massive use of chemical products in agriculture (glyphosate), and the use of chemical substances and packaging (phthalates) to preserve food have a major impact on the environment and contribute to the high level of CO2 emissions. At the same time, too much fat, too much sugar, food with too many calories and a major consumption of sweetened beverages and alcohol, or food contaminated by pesticides, combined with a reduction in physical activity, are major risk factors for NCDs.

Diabetes is a perfect illustration of this strong link between the health of populations and the health of our planet and the related challenges. In 2017, 425 million people were living with diabetes. One person died from it every 6 seconds and the disease cost USD 723 bn. Diabetes is also the leading cause of blindness, persons undergoing dialysis and non-traumatic amputations around the world. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that by 2045, there will be 628 million patients, over 80% of which will be living in low-income and middle-income countries. Diabetes will affect 42 million people in Africa and will cost the African continent USD 6.6 bn. 90% of cases of diabetes would be avoidable if we adopted ambitious prevention policies aiming at changing eating behavior and sedentary lifestyles.

Unfortunately, this objective is still a dream. For people who are already suffering from diabetes, treatments are extremely expensive for the patient, their family, but also for governments. In certain countries, these treatments are not available to all, and in others, these treatments are available, but the cost is a huge burden. In Africa, an antidiabetic drug like insulin is only available in 40% of countries and at a very high price. For example, in Mali, 56% of households with a diabetic patient devote over 40% of their incomes to healthcare payments. Policies for access to treatments are consequently essential.

• Feed the planet more healthily in order to reduce the impact of poor nutrition on human health and the environment;
• Prevent chronic diseases in order to reduce their economic burden;
• Provide patients suffering from an NCD with access to treatments essential for their care at an affordable cost or “free” thanks to universal health coverage;
• Regulate private sector involvement in order to reduce conflicts of interests and achieve real progress in the quality of food products and access to treatments.

These challenges require taking urgent measures:

—Adopt a taxation and regulations that guarantee healthy and ecological nutrition

• Adopt taxes on alcohol and sweet beverages to reduce their consumption (based on the sugar tax model in France);
• Universalize labelling on food content (like Nutri-Score);
• Ban adverts on junk food targeting the youngest public;
• Adopt positive tax measures to make healthy products with high nutritional qualities cheaper.

—Develop prevention programs which will allow consumers to make better food choices, while ensuring there are living and working spaces favorable for doing a regular physical activity.

—Ensure access to high-quality treatments at a lower cost for NCDs and include the medical treatments/systems required for universal health coverage.

—Finance the global response against NCDs by a Trust Fund to structure effective prevention in countries which do not have sufficient means, and exchange expertise to support countries in their strategies to fight against NCDs.

Signatories

• Cynthia Fleury – Philosophe et Professeur au Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers)
• Stéphane Besançon – Directeur Général de l’ONG ONG Santé Diabète
• Gaël Giraud – Chief Economist Agence Française de Développement
• Cyril Dion – Réalisateur et cofondateur du mouvement Colibris
• Katie Dain – Directrice Générale de l’ONG NCD Alliance
• Pierre Salignon – Responsable des partenariats avec la société civile à l’Agence Française de Développement
• Marion Nestle – Professeur de Nutrition à l’Université de New York et écrivaine
• David Beran – Chercheur, service de médecine tropicale et humanitaire des Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève
• Jean Marie Milleliri – Secrétaire Général du Groupe d’intervention en santé publique et épidémiologie
• David Hacquin – Président de l’ONG Santé Diabète

Camille Mary – Coordinatrice ONG Santé Diabète

—Copyright ID4D

A study from The National Bureau of Economic Research finds that calorie labeling on restaurant menus reduced calorie consumption by about 3%, mainly from appetizers and main dishes, but not from drinks or desserts (oh dear).

The Cornell investigators’ description of the study is worth a look.  Here’s what got my attention:

In one restaurant, the number of calories in the appetizers ranged from 200 to 910. The entrees ranged from 580 to 1,840 calories, and the desserts from 420 to 1,150 calories.

Gulp.  No wonder people have trouble maintaining reasonable weight.  Most people require between 2000 (small, inactive) and 3000 (big, very active) calories a day.  One meal in that unnamed place takes care of that and then some, and a 3% reduction won’t make a dent.

Thanks to the Hagstrom Report for finding these studies.

I find the details of trade policy almost impossible to understand (so many arcane rules, so many countries), and am grateful whenever I read something crystal clear.

Politico explains (behind a paywall, alas) how our trade war with China is hurting US soybean farmers, beginning with:

The good news: The European Union is buying lots more US soybeans than it used to.  Purchases are up 133% over last year, and now account for 52% of EU soybean imports.

The bad news: The EU is buying US soybeans because they are cheap.  Because China is not buying US soybeans, there is a glut; prices have fallen by 20%.

Estimates are that the EU will buy $2.5 billion this year.  But last year, China bought $12.3 billion in soybeans.  That’s nearly a $10 billion loss unless other buyers can be found (the estimate is a $7 billion loss).

China is now buying soybeans from Brazil, and at premium prices.

Here’s what the American Soybean Association has to say about all this.

One more indicator:  Politico also mentions an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal detailing how more than 2,500 US dairy farmers have resorted to GoFundMe campaigns to save their farms.

I wish we grew more food for people instead of food for animals or fuel for cars, and that our agricultural policy linked to health policy.

Maybe if we did that, we wouldn’t be in this situation.  But GoFundMe campaigns?

Maybe we just need real agricultural policies.