Forbes has published a ranking of the top 2000 global companies (all kinds, not just food) by a composite score of revenue, profit, assets, and market value.

Forbes summarizes some of the information for food processing companies.  By its measure, Anheuser Busch, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the top three.

Coca-Cola, however, ranks #209, a big drop from last year’s #86.  It did not have a good year last year.

You can sort the list by name or category.  I did that for four categories: Beverage, Food processing, Food retail, and Restaurants.

Walmart does not show up as a food retailer; Forbes considers it a Discount Store, even though food accounts for nearly half of Walmart’s revenues, nearly $200 billion a year.

Here are the food, beverage, retail, and restaurants that show up as among the top 250 companies, worldwide.  I only included sales and profits in this  table; you would have to add in assets and market value to understand the ranking system.

Food, beverage, retail, and restaurant companies among the biggest 250 companies worldwide.

*About 40% of sales are from food.

This is why Walmart is the elephant in the food-business room.

The industry newsletter ConfectionaryNews.com has a collection of articles on “functional” candy.  In this context, “functional” means the addition of something not originally present to enhance the food’s nutritional value.

In the U.S., confectioners have to be careful not to violate the FDA’s so-called “jelly bean rule,” one that says you cannot add nutrients to foods (like jelly beans) just to make them appear to be healthy.

But wouldn’t it be great if candy was a health food?  Spirulina chocolate?  Read on.

Special Edition: Functional Confectionery

The consumer trend towards better-for-you snacks gives confections made with functional ingredients an opportunity to scoop up their share in the health and wellness market.

As part of this special edition on Functional Confectionery, ConfectioneryNews talks to YouBar about its nutrition bars that meet individualized recipes for dietary and nutritional needs; Rainmaker which is currently testing its first line of branded protein confectionery products in the UK and Ireland; and Supertreats’ carob powder which is a healthy alternative to cocoa.

• Michigan food incubator bets big on protein for confectionery startups’ growth:  Food incubator Rainmaker said incoming confectioners should mimic the snack category using protein as a functional ingredient to drive their sales… Read
• Carob’s health halo beats cocoa for kids confectionery, says UK start-up:  Far from being cocoa’s poor cousin, carob powder is the ideal ingredient for healthy confectionery for kids, mimicking the “shine, snap and silky smooth texture” of milk chocolate without the stimulants caffeine and theobromine, says Supertreats founder… Read 
• YouBar increases production for nutrition bars for individualized dietary needs:  YouBar has seen increased demand for its ready-for-market nutrition bars that meet individualized recipes for a range of dietary and nutritional needs… Read 
• Functional formulation: Turkish team hunt for recipe to better quality omega-3 chocolate:  Both white and dark chocolate can be used as a carrier matrix for bioactive substances like omega-3, say researchers. However the type of EPA and DHA used may have a major impact on quality, they warn… Read 
• Going for gum: Vitamin drinks brand expands into vitamin chewing gum:  A vitamin drinks brand is expanding into confectionery with its vitamin chewing gum: seeing the potential of both products to appeal to on-the-go consumers… Read 
• Spirulina finds success in Dutch start-up’s algae chocolate:  Dutch start-up The Algae Factory is pushing the foodpairing boundaries with its algae chocolate that contains sustainably sourced spirulina… Read

Public Health England has a report out on how the country’s food industry is doing with its pledges to reduce sugar.

The goal was to reduce sugar in the most popular food products by 20% by 2020:

The results: about a 2% reduction in food products, but an 11% reduction in drinks.

Public Health England considers this an “encouraging start.”

The Guardian says the food industry has failed to meet its targets.

Here’s how Public Health England explains all this:

If this is going to work, all food companies must set targets and take action to meet them.

We could do this here….?

The NAFTA agreement meant that the US, Canada, and Mexico would not impose tariffs on each other’s products.

But the Trump Administration has announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from Canada and Mexico.

Canada is retaliating.  Here is its list of US products subject to new tariffs.  Table 2 lists agricultural products, among them,

• Yogurt
• Coffee
• Prepared meals
• Maple sugar
• Pizza and quiche
• Chocolate
• Waters
• Whiskies

Mexico also is retaliating.  Its list (in Spanish) includes, among others,

• Cheeses
• Apples
• Ham
• Pork
• Potatoes
• Whisky

This means that these products will be more expensive—a lot more expensive—in Canada and Mexico and, therefore, will not sell as well.

Pork producers are particularly distressed.

The FDA did something quite unusual.  It issued an apparently frank description of where it is in investigating the Romaine lettuce E. coli outbreak that has sickened 197 people, put 89 in the hospital, and killed five—so far.

It published a chart summarizing what the agency has learned about the various distribution channels along the way to the contaminated lettuce that made people sick.

As the FDA explains:

As can be seen in the diagram, in the current outbreak, and based on the information we have to date, there are still no obvious points of convergence along the supply chain…These pathways lead back to different farms, sometimes many farms, where possibly contaminated lettuce could have been harvested during the timeframe of interest.  The only point of commonality in our traceback efforts to date is that all of the farms are located in the Yuma growing region…What does this traceback diagram tell us?  It says that there isn’t a simple or obvious explanation for how this outbreak occurred within the supply chain…The contamination likely happened at, or close to, the Yuma growing area.  Our task now is to investigate what happened.

I used “apparently” with reference to the FDA’s frankness because food safety lawyer Bill Marler, who represents many of the victims of this outbreak,* points out that the FDA must know the names of the farms, distributors, and sellers of the contaminated lettuce, but refuses to say who they are.  Of his own work, Marler says:

We are in the unique position to know many, but not all, of the “points of sale” – restaurants and grocery stores – involved in the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to romaine lettuce. Having over 100 clients allows us to dig deep into their purchase history and consumption history.

We have already determined clusters of illnesses linked to Panera, Texas Roadhouse, Red Lobsters and Papa Murphy’s. We also have identified a processor – Freshway Foods.

If you knew the names of places selling contaminated lettuce, wouldn’t you have sense enough not to eat in them?

• Here is Marler’s video of one of the children sickened in this outbreak.  Heartbreaking.

The FDA has concluded its “consultation process” on Golden Rice.  This, you may recall, is rice bioengineered to contain genes for beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A.

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) consulted with the FDA to make sure that the agency had no objection to this rice being used in human or animal food products.

The FDA’s letter to IRRI concluding the consultation includes this statement:

Although GR2E [“Golden”} rice is not intended for human or animal food uses in the United States, when present, it would be a producer’s or distributer’s responsibility to ensure that labeling of human and animal foods marketed in the United States, meets applicable legal requirements.  Although the concentration of ß-carotene in GR2E rice is too low to warrant a nutrient content claim, the ß-carotene in GR2E rice results in grain that is yellow-golden in color.*

The FDA’s analysis of the science concludes that this rice Is unlikely to be toxic or allergenic.  It also concludes that although the rice contains higher amounts of ß-carotene than non-modified rice, people in the U.S. are unlikely to eat much of it and in any case the amounts would decline due to storage, processing, and cooking.

In any case, the amounts are not high enough to merit a nutrient-content claim.

This rice has long been promoted as a means to solve problems of vitamin A deficiency in the developing world.  Will it?  We are still waiting to find out.

*What does “too low to warrant a nutrient content claim” mean?

The FDA’s rules for nutrient content claims (go to pages 91 and 92) say:

• “High,” “Rich in,” or “Excellent source of” means that a standard food portion contains 20% or more of the daily value for that nutrient.
• “Good source,” “Contains,” or “Provides” means 10% to 19% of the daily value per standard serving.
• “More,” “Fortified,” “Enriched,” “Added,” “Extra,” or “Plus” means 10% or more of the daily value than an appropriate reference food.

The daily value for beta-carotene is complicated because it is a precursor of vitamin A; 12 micrograms of beta-carotene are equivalent to one vitamin A unit.  The standard for adults and children is 900 vitamin A units or 900 x 12 for beta-carotene = 10,800 micrograms.

One serving of Golden Rice must provide less than 10% of that amount (1,080 micrograms).

For comparison, one small carrot provides about 4000 micrograms of beta-carotene.

The AP reports that the reason the WHO committee on preventing noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) did not recommend soda taxes is that the US representative vetoed the idea.

The Trump administration has torpedoed a plan to recommend higher taxes on sugary drinks, forcing a World Health Organization panel to back off the U.N. agency’s previous call for such taxes as a way to fight obesity, diabetes and other life-threatening conditions.

The move disappointed many public health experts but was enthusiastically welcomed by the International Food and Beverage Alliance — a group that represents companies including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo. and Unilever.

The WHO committee’s report appeared in The Lancet last week.  About soda taxes, it said:

The Commissioners represented rich and diverse views and perspectives. There was broad agreement in most areas, but some views were conflicting and could not be resolved. As such, some recommendations, such as reducing sugar consumption through effective taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and the accountability of the private sector, could not be reflected in this report, despite broad support from many Commissioners.

It did not include soda taxes in its tax recommendation:

Implement fiscal measures, including raising taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and consider evidence-based fiscal measures for other unhealthy products.

This omission is striking in view of WHO’s strong previous positions on the need to reduce NCDs as part of the agency’s Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, and on reducing sugars and taxing sodas as a means to achieve those goals:

• In 2015, WHO recommended  that sugars be consumed at less than 10% of calories.
• In 2016, WHO recommended taxes on sugary drinks as a way to reduce sugar intake and prevent NCDs.

Again a US veto?  Recall the infamous incident in 2003 when the US blocked the agency from recommending a reduction in sugar intake.

The US should not be holding WHO hostage to public health measures.

WHO should not be caving in to US threats.

NCDs are the major cause of worldwide death and disability and we need worldwide efforts to prevent them.  This calls for cooperation, not blackmail.

Shame.

The USDA reports that investment in agricultural research is declining (since 2009) in high-income countries, particularly in the U.S.

The U.S. share of total agricultural investment in research was 35% in 1960; it fell to 25% in 2013.

What with global problems of hunger, chronic disease, and climate change, shouldn’t we be doing more agricultural research, not less?

The documents

• Agricultural Research Investment and Policy Reform in High-Income Countries
• Summary report
• Amber Waves article, Agricultural Research in High-Income Countries Faces New Challenges as Public Funding Stalls.
• Webinar, Tuesday, June 5, at 1 p.m. EDT.  Registration webinar page.