The Santa Cruz Sentinal says Measure Z soda tax officially passes in Santa Cruz.

According to the Santa Cruz County Elections Department, 15,780 votes were counted in favor of the ballot initiative, or about 52%, and 14,364 votes, or approximately 48%, were counted against the passage of Measure Z….“Despite being outspent $1.9 million to our $85,000 by corporate special interests, the people of Santa Cruz stood strong and made their voices heard.”

The tax has been a long time coming.  It was first proposed in 2018, but was blocked by a California state act backed by the soda industry which prevented taxes on groceries until 2031.  Lawsuits overturned the penalty provision of the act, which allowed tax proposals to continue.

Politico reviews the history of soda tax fights in California.

Berkeley voted to renew its existing tax, no doubt for these reasons and despite being outspent tenfold.

Research looking at the last decade of Berkeley’s sugary drink tax shows the tax is working: Consumption of sugary drinks dropped by 52% and water increased by 29% among Berkeley residents in diverse neighborhoods with a large proportion of Black and Latino residents. In addition, 16 hydration stations have been installed and $5.7 million has been invested into 18 community gardens at Berkeley Unified School District sites. Funding has also supported vital public health and sustainability programs through organizations like Lifelong Medical Care, Healthy Black Families, The Multicultural Institute, YMCA of the East Bay Early Childhood Impact and The Ecology Center.

The point of all this:

Sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugar in the American diet. The American Heart Association recommends no more than six teaspoons of added sugar per day for women and nine teaspoons for men. One 12-ounce can of sugared soda contains about 10 teaspoons.

I have to say, it’s thrilling to see chronic disease prevention at last getting the attention it totally deserves.  Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders’ Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee held a hearing: What Is the FDA Doing to Reduce the Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics in America and Take on the Greed of the Food and Beverage Industry?

Sanders was eloquent about the need to prevent obesity and its healtth consequences, particularly among children.

Food Fix has an excellent summary: Concern about chronic disease crisis takes a bipartisan turn

During the two-hour hearing, FDA was roundly criticized for not taking a more active role in combating diet-related diseases and cracking down on the food industry. (Nevermind that Congress has not been on FDA about these issues and has actually thwarted the agency’s work on nutrition over the years at the behest of industry, but I digress!)

If you were listening to this hearing, you really couldn’t tell which lawmaker was Republican or Democrat based on their comments alone. And as far as I could tell, no lawmaker came to the defense of the industry. Instead, there was broad, bipartisan agreement that the status quo isn’t acceptable.

….The sharpest exchange of the hearing this week came from Sen. Sanders. He pressed FDA Commissioner Robert Califf on what progress FDA has made to warn Americans about the harms of processed foods. Sanders noted that it was 14 years ago that FDA began looking into front-of-pack labeling, and a proposal has still not been released. Meanwhile, many other countries have gone ahead with such labels and/or gone further, implementing bold front-of-pack warning labels.

Califf, who I find thoughtful and impressively honest, was pushed hard by Sanders.  He explained the congressional restrictions on what FDA can do (money, laws).  Obviously, these can be changed.

Mostly, I found the emphasis on stopping marketing of junk food to kids particularly heartening.

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine published a terrific report on Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?

One of its recommendations:

Recommendation 8: Government at all levels should marshal the full range of public policy levers to foster the development and promotion of healthful diets for children and youth.

It went on to say:

If voluntary efforts related to advertising during children’s television programming are unsuccessful in shifting the emphasis away from high-calorie and low-nutrient foods and beverages to the advertising of healthful foods and beverages, Congress should enact legislation mandating the shift on both broadcast and cable television.

Well, yes.  It’s been nearly 20 years since that report.  Surely, the time has come.

Jung J-S, Choi G-H, Lee H, Ko Y, Ji S. The Clinical Effect of a Propolis and Mangosteen Extract Complex in Subjects with Gingivitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Nutrients 2024, 16(17), 3000; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16173000

Results:  The results revealed that the PMEC group showed a significantly reduced expression of all measured GCF biomarkers compared to the placebo group (p < 0.0001) at 8 weeks, including substantial reductions in IL-1β, PGE2, MMP-8, and MMP-9 levels compared to the baseline. While clinical parameters trended towards improvement in both groups, the intergroup differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that PMEC consumption can attenuate gingival inflammation and mitigate periodontal tissue destruction by modulating key inflammatory mediators in gingival tissue.

Funding: This research was funded by Medibio Lab Co., Ltd.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors declare that this study received funding from Lab Co., Ltd. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of this manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Comment: This is a typical industry-funded study in which the authors put a positive interpretation of what appear to be null findings.  I can’t quite tell what this sponsoring company is.  One possibility is MediBioKorea.  Another is Medibios.  Both make supplements.

Here’s the announcement:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) today launched its 2024 Statistical Yearbook, offering an in-depth overview of the most significant trends shaping global agrifood systems. This year’s edition highlights critical challenges, including increased temperatures over land, the ongoing global struggle with food insecurity alongside increasing obesity rates, and the environmental pressures faced by agricultural production….

The 2024 Statistical Yearbook is also available in a digital, interactive format and comes with a companion pocketbook, offering a clear reference to key data on agriculture, food security, and sustainability. It is part of FAO’s ongoing effort to improve data accessibility, complementing the FAOSTAT platform, which hosts the world’s largest collection of free agricultural statistics, covering over 245 countries and territories.

It’s got great graphics.  One example:

A few highlights:

• The value of global agriculture: $3.8 trillion in 2022.
• Proportion of global workforce employed in agriculture: a decrease from 40% in 2000 to 26% in 2022.
• Hunger remains persistent: In 2023, between 713 and 757 million people were undernourished, 152 million more people than in 2019.  Most are in Asia and Africa.
• Obesity is rising: More than 25% of adults in the Americas, Europe and Oceania are obese.
• Meat production increased by 55% from 2000 to 2022, with chicken accounting for the largest share of this rise. 
• Pesticides increased by 70% between 2000 and 2022, with the Americas accounting for half global pesticide use.
• Vegetable oils grew by 133 percent between 2000 and 2021, largely driven by an increase in palm oil production.
• Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems rose 10% between 2000 and 2022, with livestock contributing to around 54% of farmgate emissions.
• Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are withdrawing each year 9 to almost 40 times their renewable freshwater resources available.

Comment: Food systems need immediate transformation to become healthier and more sustainable. 

I learned about this from one of the last posts from Chuck Abbott’s AgInsider (written for FERN, the Food and Environment Reporting Network), which he is stopping and I will greatly miss.

USDA deregulates GM wheat, says it is safe to grow in the U.S.:  For the first time, the Agriculture Department approved cultivation of genetically modified wheat in the United States on Tuesday, deregulating a drought- and herbicide-tolerant variety developed by an Argentine company. A U.S. wheat industry official said it would be years before the HB4 wheat from Bioceres Crop Solutions was successfully commercialized in the country because of the need to gain acceptance on the domestic front and by wheat-importing nations.

The USDA says the Bioceres Crop Solutions, wheat with drought tolerance and herbicide resistance is “unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated plants. As a result, they are not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. From a plant pest risk perspective, this modified plant may be safely grown and bred in the United States.”

The company announced to investors, “Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. (NASDAQ: BIOX) announced today that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has favorably concluded its Regulatory Status Review (RSR) for HB4 wheat technology.

According to Reuters, this wheat variety has already been approved in several other countries.

The announcements all make a big deal of its drought resistance; none of them say anything about its herbicide resistance.  AI to the rescue!  HB4 wheat tolerates glufosinate, a potent week killer “used for broadcast burndown application before planting or prior to emergence.”  It has been reasonably well studied, kills non-target plants easily, seems OK for insects, gets into water supplies, is moderately toxic to fish and slightly toxic to mammals.  The EPA considers exposure levels to be “below levels of concern.”

Why am I not reassured.

If you want to know why the Non-GMO Project label is seen on so many supermarket products, uncertainties about herbicide effects are surely one reason.

You don’t want to be a guinea pig in this experiment?  Buy Organic or Non-GMO Verified, or foods with both labels.

Food trade is always a big issue, but it’s one I have a hard time keeping up with.  It’s in the news right now because President-elect Trump is threatening to increase tariffs with unsettling effects.   His vows, vows to slap new tariffs on U.S. trading partners on Day One, according to Politico, “has sent ripple effects through the U.S. agricultural industry, which relies on exports to boost profits for vital commodity crops like soy and corn.”

On top of that, the USDA predicts a record $45.5 billion deficit in food trade this year: U.S. Agricultural Exports in Fiscal Year 2025 Forecast at $170.0 Billion; Imports at $215.5 Billion.

As Agricultural Dive explains,

An already record agricultural trade deficit in the United States is expected to get even bigger, the Agriculture Department said Tuesday.  The U.S. farm trade deficit in fiscal year 2025 is on track to reach $45.5 billion, according to an updated USDA outlook. Government analysts were previously forecasting a $42.5 billion deficit in August….

While U.S. producers have been able to modestly increase exports of livestock, dairy, corn and sorghum since the USDA’s August forecast, trade of other major commodities — namely cotton and soybeans — has declined. Crop farmers have been hit the hardest by a decline in global prices and are expected to bear the brunt of the widening trade deficit….

Trade with two of the U.S.′ biggest markets faces additional risks next year as President-elect Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trade with both countries has soared in recent years, with Mexico replacing China as the top U.S. agricultural market.

Much of the deficit is our fault, apparently.  We have a voracious demand for “ever-larger amounts of imported fruits, vegetables, wine, alcohol, coffee, and beef.”

The issue of Mexico as our top market raises questtions about the GMO corn we send there.  US Right to Know has published or reproduced a series of articles on this issue.

• GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from Mexico-US trade dispute 
• New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
• Mexico’s Scientfic Dossier on GMO Corn and its Effects
• Leading scientist defends Mexico’s food sovereignty from GM corn and glyphosate

The trade dispute works both ways: US suspends Mexico cattle imports after New World screwworm detected: The United States has relied on livestock from the country as ranchers struggle to rebuild depleted cattle herds.

Finally, for now, a new FAO report offers guidance and data on integrating nutrition goals into food trade policies: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2024.

While trade liberalization has numerous benefits for food security, questions linger about whether it is conducive to healthy diets. An analysis for SOCO 2024 using FAO’s Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet indicator found that higher import tariffs are associated with higher food prices irrespective of the healthy qualities of the foods, indicating that, in general, trade openness does not have a disproportionate effect on high-energy low-nutrition foods.

Two previous short-term studies demonstrated that if you eat a diet based largely on ultra-processed foods, you are likely to consume far more calories than you would eating less processed diets–and not notice that you are overeating.

The big question: why.

Study #1:  Hall K, et al.  Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake .  Cell Metabolism 2019; 30:67–77.

When study subjects ate the ultra-processed diet, they consumed 500 calories a day more than when they were eating the unprocessed diet.  This is a staggering difference.  They seemed to eat the ultra-processed diet faster.

Study #2: Hamano S, Sawada M, Aihara M, Sakurai Y, Sekine R, Usami S, Kubota N, Yamauchi T. Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: A randomized, open-label, crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024 Nov;26(11):5431-5443. doi: 10.1111/dom.15922.

These investigators reported a difference of 813 calories.  They attributed it to less chewing.

Study #3 (as yet unpublished): Its results appeared as a Tweet (X) from Dr. Hall describing a presentation he gave at a meeting in London (Apparently, X is where science gets discussed these days).  The recording of the entire meeting is now available.  Dr Hall’s presentation begins at minute 38.

The latest result: a difference of 1000 calories a day!

Dr. Hall was kind enough to send me the slides from his presentation.

My translation:

• Blue bar: Minimally processed diet, low in energy density (calories per gram) and low in irresistably delicious (hyper-palatable) foods.
• Red bar: Ultra-processed diet high in energy density and high in hyper-palatable foods.

The big result: Difference between blue (unprocessed) and red (ultra-processed): 1000 calories a day.

• Purple bar: Ultra-processed high in energy density, low in hyper-palatable.
• Green bar: Ultra-processed low in energy density, low in hyper-palatable.

Difference between purple (high, low) and red: 200 calories a day.

Difference between green (low, low) and red: 630 calories a day.

Participants reported no differences in appetite or pleasantness of the meals on the various diets.  There also were no observable differences in eating rate.

Obviously, participants who ate more calories gained more weight.

Comment

My summary: We love and cannot stop eating yummy high-calorie foods.

All of this reminds me of the work of Barbara Rolls, who for years has argued for diets low in energy density, and whose low-energy-dense Volumetrics diet is consistently ranked at the top of diet plans.

It’s great to see all this research coming together.  Whatever the reasons—energy density, hyper-palatability, less chewing—the take-home-message seems utterly obvious: reduce intake of ultra-processed foods.

As Jerry Mande summarized the significance of this study, also in a Tweet (X) :

BREAKING..@KevinH_PhD  presents preliminary data from long awaited (6yrs!) follow-up study. Confirm initial findings. Energy dense, hyper-palatable UPF foods result in 1000 kcal/day greater intake than minimally processed food. Time to regulate UPF #MAHA

Indeed, yes.

[Apologies for sending this out yesterday (in error).  I’ve added a few things.]

Such an odd time we live in, with politics making increasingly strange bedfellows, this time with the American Council on Science and Health, an industry front group if there ever was one.

Yet here it is with two articles on the looming threat of bird flu.

USDA’s Dereliction in Containing Bird Flu Could Cause Calamitous Pandemic (Part 1) An inherent conflict of interest – USDA both regulating and promoting livestock industries – prevents appropriate responses to outbreaks of infectious disease. READ MORE

The government’s inaction has allowed H5N1 to spread with remarkably little attention. The virus has now affected at least 446 dairy herds in 15 states and more than 100 million birds, mostly commercial poultry, in addition to the documented human cases…USDA is the primary culprit in this failure. The department is tasked with two conflicting roles: protecting the health and safety of the nation’s livestock while promoting and protecting the $174.2 billion agriculture industry. Sick cows with a novel strain of bird flu do not bode well for business, especially for a dairy sector that exports millions of tons of milk, cheese, and other products globally each year.

Shortly after the March detection of H5N1, USDA imposed what amounts to a gag order on its employees, according to insiders. State veterinarians began receiving private phone calls from their USDA colleagues, who told them to refrain from discussing the outbreak without prior approval. This information embargo severely hindered the response from the start.

How Bureaucratic Infighting, Dairy Industry Lobbying Have Worsened H5N1 Bird Flu Outbreak (Part 2): There is an inherent conflict of interest – and the potential for injury to public health – when a federal department both regulates and promotes an industry. Nowhere is this more evident than at USDA. READ MORE

While the White House pushed for a response focused on public health, the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which share jurisdiction over the production, transportation, and storage of eggs, seemed more concerned with protecting the interests of the dairy industry. Dairy representatives worried that the virus and subsequent restrictions could cripple their business…According to a former USDA official, dairy industry insiders were alarmed that White House staff were contacting them directly, bypassing the usual channels through the USDA. State veterinarians reported they were told to discontinue routine calls with the USDA’s veterinary services. This exacerbated the communication rift between the White House and the USDA.

The USDA had historically relied on the cooperation of farmers and industry stakeholders, and the bureaucrats feared losing that trust. In contrast, the White House’s OPPR and its public health allies grew increasingly frustrated as the USDA dragged its feet and adopted an approach that seemed to be, “If you don’t test, you don’t know.” This tension and communication failures have come to define the fractured nature of the government’s response to the H5N1 outbreak.

Comment: much of this sounds familiar.  As with any food safety issue, testing protects the public but puts companies at risk.  If testing finds something, companies have to do something: recall products, cull animals, or other things that will cut into profits.  Bird flu is a looming threat to humans; only 55 cases have been detected so far, but as the disease spreads among cattle, cases could increase.  Federal agencies should be doing everything they can to stop this threat.  Let’s hope.

In the meantime, the USDA says it is taking action: USDA Builds on Actions to Protect Livestock and Public Health from H5N1 Avian Influenza.

Since this disease was first detected in dairy cattle in March 2024, the USDA and state and federal partners have taken several steps to better understand the virus and work to eliminate it from dairy herds. In May 2024, USDA implemented a Federal Order to require the testing of cattle before interstate movement, which has helped to limit H5N1’s spread to new states; in the past 30 days, the number of states with known avian influenza detections in dairy herds has dropped from 14 to two. However, USDA believes that additional steps are needed to proactively support effective biosecurity measures, which are key for states and farmers to contain and eliminate H5N1 infections from their livestock.