An article in The Guardian alerted me to a new report comparing antibiotic use in the UK to that in the US.  The Guardian explains the problem:

The contribution of farm antibiotic use to human resistance is widely recognised, including by the 2016 O’Neill AMR report, the World Health Organisation and the European Food Safety Authority.

The routine overuse of antibiotics in farm animals creates perfect conditions for the emergence of resistant bacteria, killing off susceptible bacteria while allowing stronger resistant bacteria to survive.

The report comes from the UK advocacy group, Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics.

The report finds that per ton of livestock, antibiotic:

• Use in US pigs is about twice as high as use in UK pigs.
• Use in US chickens is about 3 times as high as use in UK chickens.
• Use in US turkeys is about 5 times as high as use in UK turkeys.
• Use in US cattle is about 9-16 times as high as use in UK cattle.
• Use in all food animals in the US is about 5 times as high as use in the UK.

The report includes a table of US sales of medically important antibiotics (kilograms active ingredient):This group has lots of other reports on specific aspects of antibiotic use, including one from October 2017 on farm antibiotic use in the U.S.

The FDA, which has an entire web page on animal antibiotics, has made valiant efforts over the years to control antibiotic use in farm animals, but these have not gotten very far.

The threat to the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans is real and affects all of us.  At least 20 organizations in the US are advocating for more responsible use of antibiotics in farm animals.

Their efforts deserve support.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m keeping score on companies dropping their membership in and substantial financial support of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lobbying group for decidedly consumer-unfriendly food companies.

Add the top two are new to the list since my last post.

• The Kraft Heinz Company
• DowDuPont
• Hershey
• Cargill
• Tyson
• Unilever
• Mars
• Campbell Soup
• Nestlé (my non-namesake)
• Dean Foods

Kraft Heinz makes Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, Tang, and Lunchables, among lots of other products.  It told Politico Morning Agriculture (this may be behind a paywall):

The Kraft Heinz Company will continue to focus this year on wins for the consumer including innovating new products, using simpler and more sustainable ingredients and providing more transparency about our offerings.  We appreciate GMA’s many contributions on behalf of the industry and our consumers.

Will the defections lead to a collapse of the GMA?  Or force it to reform?  Or let it continue to limp along?  Stay tuned.

This report from the UK Health Forum is a compendium of case studies about food industry influence on government food and nutrition policies in developing countries such as Mexico, Chile, Fiji, Brazil, and Guatemala, but also England, Canada, and others.

To pick just one example, that of Chile:

This case study examines the long-standing relationship between the food
industry and the Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA) of the
University of Chile – the most prestigious food and nutrition-related institution
in the country. The types of collaboration include:

• industry-funded research
• scholarships and awards
• membership of industry-funded or linked foundations
• awarding of nutrient-specific certification of foods that are high in calories,
  sugar, saturated fats or salt
• joint public health programmes
• marketing in institutional publications and websites.

INTA plays a major role in food policy-making in Chile…The existence of
strong financial ties between INTA and the food and drinks industry represents
a conflict of interest, potentially compromising INTA’s independence in highly
relevant research and policy areas.

A reader in South Africa, Effie Schultz, sends an item from NutraIngredients-USA about a new meal replacement product, Bear Squeeze, “packed with MCT [medium-chain triglyceride] oil, kale, pumpkin seed protein and probiotics.”  It is aimed at people on ketogenic (very low carbohydrate) diets.

The president of the company that makes this product, Max Baumann, says that he wants Bear Squeeze to be known as a “higher-end, cleaner Soylent.”

NutraIngredients says:

If there’s any indicator that a large group of consumers are stoked about a meal replacement powder formulated to meet the requirements of a ketogenic diet, let that be California-based Bear Squeeze’s performance on fundraising platform Indiegogo,​ ​where it raised 421% of its $25,000 goal, a good month before its fundraising deadline.

The brand also snagged the top prize​​ at the new beverage showdown competition at BevNET Live last month, showing that Baumann has gotten the industry excited about his brand as well.

Why this product?  There is money—lots of it—to be made, apparently.

The impetus to start Bear Squeeze,…was seeing the success of meal replacement brands like Soylent, which recently moved from exclusively digital to brick-and-mortar. Soylent CEO Bryan Crowley said last month that sales performance in the offline channel “blew away expectations.”​​​

I have to confess not getting this.  With plenty of healthy, delicious food around, and at a cost buyers of products like these can well afford, why would anyone want to substitute something that tastes pretty awful (I’ve tasted Soylent and doubt this can be much better) for fabulous food?  People who consume these products must not be foodies, alas.

Medium-chain triglycerides are easy-to-digest fats created and formulated for hospitalized patients with serious digestive difficulties.

I vote for food, glorious food, anytime.

This tweet certainly got my attention:

It referred to Alex Kotch’s article in the International Business Times about how White House lawyer Donald McGahn has granted a waiver of conflict of interest rules to allow Kailee Tkacz, a former lobbyist for the Snack Food Association and, more recently, for the Corn Refiners Association, to advise the USDA about the forthcoming 2020 dietary guidelines.

Ms. Tkacz also was food policy director for the Corn Refiners Association, which represents producers of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

McGahn explained that this waiver would allow Ms. Tkacz “to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and other senior Department officials with respect to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process.”

He says “it is in the public interest to grant this limited waiver because of Ms. Tkacz’s expertise in the process by which the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are issued every five years.”

The dietary guidelines historically have issued recommendations to consume less salt and sugar.  Snack foods are major sources of salt in U.S. diets.  Soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are major sources of sugars.

USDA is the lead agency for the 2020 guidelines.

Want to make some bets on what they will say about salt and sugar (a wild guess: the science isn’t firm enough to suggest eating less of either).

Remember calorie labeling on the menu boards of chain restaurants?

This started in New York City in 2008.  The chains have survived, and the world has not come to an end.

In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (remember that?) was passed with a provision to take calorie labeling national.

Since then, the delays have been endless but menu labeling is scheduled to go into effect in May 2018.

For the history of all this, see the FDA’s summary.

But now the House of Representatives has introduced, and will vote this week on, an anti-menu-labeling bill, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act (HR. 772).  Its purpose is to further delay and weaken the provisions.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest  (CSPI) has issued an emailed action alert pointing out that:

Over 80 percent of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents support menu labeling, according to a new January 2018 poll released by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Further, over 80 percent think chain supermarkets, convenience stores, and pizza (like Domino’s) should be held to the same standard for labeling calories as chain restaurants.

It has suggestions for immediate advocacy:

• Mobilize your members to write their Representative. CSPI’s action alert is here.
• Engage your grassroots to urge a number of House Democrats who previously voted for the bill last Congress to oppose the bill. We have a list of targets and can provide a model note and talking points.
• Send a letter to the House opposing the bill. We can provide a model note.
• Activate your members via social media. Here are some examples:
  • 8 out of 10 Americans across all parties—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—want calorie labeling when eating out. Oppose #HR772 that would weaken and delay #menulabeling: http://bit.ly/2phlGJd.
  • 8 out of 10 Americans think pizza chains should label calories just like restaurants, yet #HR772 would exempt labeling inside pizza chains. Protect #menulabeling: http://bit.ly/2phlGJd.
  • Congress is considering weakening enforcement and consumer protections for #menulabeling. Urge them to oppose: http://bit.ly/2phlGJd.

CSPI provides additional resources about the problems with this bill:

• Claims versus Reality of the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act
• The Problem with Arbitrary Serving Sizes
• Hiding Calorie Labeling is like Hiding Speed Limits

UPDATE

The House passed the bill on a vote of 266 to 157.

I am ever in awe of the creative ways in which marketers sell—water.

George Kent sends me this brilliant example from Hawai’i: Kona Deep.

This, according to the website, is mined from deep ocean waters off the coast of that state.

Kona Deep offers a very different hydration experience because of its unique blend of naturally occurring deep ocean electrolytes.

Professor Kent did not mention how much this costs.

Translation: Kona Deep is desalinated ocean water.

Water, let me remind you, costs pennies from the tap.  Most tap water in the United States is safe to drink and tastes just fine.

• If you are worried about the chlorine taste, pour some tap water into a pitcher, stir it up a bit, and leave it out overnight.  The chlorine will vanish.
• If you are worried about contaminants, use a filter.
• If you need convenience, use a water bottle and fill it with tap water.

Bottled water may be handy, but it raises at least three issues:

• Financial
• Environmental: energy cost, waste, and litter removal
• Political: Bottled water reduces public trust and advocacy for municipal water supplies

Caveat emptor.

Jonathan K. Crane.  Eating Ethically: Religion and Science for a Better Diet.  Columbia University Press, 2017.

I did a blurb for this one:

This entertaining and provocative book draws on biblical and philosophical sources to argue that eating is an act of ethics, and that we would all be happier and healthier if we adhered to the Bible’s dietary advice—eat enough, but not too much.  Anyone interested in food will be fascinated by the stories Jonathan Crane tells here.

Here’s an excerpt, to give you a taste of what it’s about:

I call this kind of discussion eating ethics.  Its ethics are not confined to philosophical schools of consequentialism (where the ends justify the means) or deontology (where an act is moral to the degree it complies with a preconceived duty or principle).  Rather, its ethics lie in the truth that eating is in and of itself an ethical enterprise, no matter how one thinks about it.  Just as eating is an inherently ethical enterprise, food itself is similarly an ethical construct: it is socially defined and defining, as demonstrated by conversation in dietetics…it directly impacts me the eater and the eaten, not to mention the contexts in which this eating occurs, inclusive of humans, other sentient creatures, the environment, and more, as food ethics readily explains.

The book ends with this statement:

For all of these reasons, how and why we eat are two of the most urgent and pressing ethical enterprises of our very existence, and they lie daily in our own hands and mouths.