I am suddenly deluged with items about chocolate, which seems to raise any number of food politics issues.

For today, let’s deal with three: content of toxic heavy metals, research conflicts of interest, and claims of sustainability,

I.  Heavy metals. I learned about this one from Food Safety News (FSN): Consumer Reports finds one-third of chocolate is high in heavy metals: CR today released test results that have it urging Hershey’s to get harmful lead and cadmium out of its chocolate products.

FSN conveniently provided a link to the full CR report, which says.

When we tested dark chocolate bars last year, we found lead or cadmium levels above CR’s thresholds in 23 of 28 bars, or 82 percent of them. Our results this time were similar. Of the seven bars we tested, five, or 71 percent, were above our levels for lead, cadmium, or both…Eating an ounce of four others would put you over our limit for lead.

Food Safety News also reports: Chocolate makers say they have heavy metals issue under control: The National Confectioners Association (NCA) : “Chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat and can be enjoyed as treats as they have been for centuries,” NCA says. “Food safety and product quality remain our highest priorities,… Continue Reading

ConsumerLab does its own testing for toxins in Dark Chocolate, Cocoa & Cacao Products.

Which dark chocolate and cocoa products are best?  Be careful! Several cocoa powders, cacao nibs, and some dark chocolates failed to pass our review due to contamination with high levels of cadmium, a toxic heavy metal (see What CL Found).

II.  Conflicts of interest. ConsumerLab also commented on cocoa flavanols.

Furthermore, levels of potentially beneficial cocoa flavanols ranged from just 1 mg to 374 mg in cocoa powders and mixes, 2 mg to 351 mg in dark chocolates, and 2 mg to 993 mg in supplements. Products also vary widely in calories per serving.

This took me right to an e-mail from a reader, Thijs van Rens, Professor of Economics, University of Warwick,.  He wanted me to see something he had read in The Conversation: “Flavanols are linked to better memory and heart health – here’s what foods you can eat to get these benefits.”

He pointed out that the author “…received research funding from Mars, Inc., a company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities.”  He added:

I got suspicious about the funding when I read this:  “This is why flavanols extracted from cocoa are an ideal model, as they contain the two main types of flavanols.”

In fact, I was going to comment and complain about The Conversation publishing something like this, until I noticed the one-but-last paragraph:

“It’s also important to note that while the flavanols used in many studies were extracted from cocoa, unfortunately chocolate (even dark chocolate) is a very poor source of flavanols – despite what some headlines might claim. This is because these flavanols are lost during processing.”

Not sure what to make of the article. On the one hand, the author clearly states not to eat chocolate for this reason and the funding is clearly disclosed. On the other hand, how many readers will get to the one-but-last paragraph and check the disclosure statement. On balance, I could imagine Mars Inc. would be quite happy about this article.

Indeed yes.  That’s why they paid for it (but see clarification below)

III.  Sustainability.  This also came in a e-mail, this time a press release from Chocolate Scorecard, a group that rates chocolate companies on practices related to traceability, wages, child labor, deforestation, agroecology, etc.  Its key messages:

• Sustainability claims of chocolate companies cannot necessarily be trusted.
• Only 11% of chocolate companies can fully trace where their cocoa comes from – without knowing they cannot claim sustainability.
• Farmers need to be paid more for their cocoa to ensure a sustainable life.

“100% sustainably sourced cocoa,” says the sign on the stand promoting a well-known chocolate brand in the supermarket. The message is not one you can necessarily trust.

…A recent report by Oxfam claims that the “net income of farmers decreased by an estimated 16.38% between the 2019/20 and 2021/22 harvesting season.” When the price of cocoa increases everything else a farmer purchases increases in price, leaving worse off in reality. This is associated with increases in profits in chocolate companies.

The Chocolate Scorecard is a collective of 37 NGO’s and Universities. They are calling on chocolate companies to commit to a ‘living income’ for cocoa farmers.

And you thought you were just eating candy.

Additions

Readers wrote to remind me to add:

• John Oliver’s brilliant piece on low wages and child labor among chocolate workers.
• Food Empowerment Project’s Chocolate List (of chocolate companies not using child labor)

Clarification

The author of the flavanol article wrote to say that my comment could be interpreted as suggesting he was paid to write it, which he was not.  That was not my intention and I apologize for giving that impression.  I do see research or commentary paid for by food companies, but such instances are rare. The “funding effect,” as I discuss in my book Unsavory Truth, gives the appearance of conflicted interest no matter what its actual level of influence.

Hand Cardullo writes in Forbes: 87% Of Sweetened Products Contain Added Sugars Only, Study Finds.   

That seemed interesting.  But then I got to the sub-headline: New Georgetown University report cites need for more low- and no-calorie sweeteners.

As public health officials clamor to remove added sugars from food and beverage products, a new study published by the Georgetown University Business for Impact Center signals that there is much heavy lifing ahead (full disclosure: I served as an author of the paper). The report noted that added sugars dominate products containing sweeteners, with 87% of items formulated this way. Only 8% of sweetened items contain low- or no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) only, with 5% consisting of a combination of the two. The paper concluded that increased use of LNCS was necessary to eliminate meaningful amounts of added sugars and that LNCS offered effective and safe ways to do so.

Cardullo says: “Here are some things to consider:

• If public health organizations want to achieve their added sugar reduction goals, they must step up and communicate the efficacy and safety of LNCS in helping consumers manage and lose weight. This will go a long way in helping to clear up consumer confusion.
• The evidence suggests that the public health community must use only the best studies to advance firm points of view on the use of LNCS.
• To help reduce added sugars, food and beverage companies should incorporate LNCS into more of their products.”

Really?  My usual question: Who paid for this?

The paper: Moving Towards Healthier Eating Habits: Why Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners Play a Critical Role

The funder: “Funding for this paper was provided by the Calorie Control Council” [an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry].

Comment: Here is one of the figures from the paper.

This shows that 24% of added sugars come from sugar-sweetened beverages, and another 19% come from desserts and snacks.

Cutting down on both is a good idea on its own, and one that does not require the addition or substitution of artificial sweetneners.

Farm Action, an organization devoted to stopping corporate agrocultural monopolies and building fair competition in rural America, has issued a short report, Balancing the US Agricuiltural Trade Deficit with Higher Value Food Crops.  

Its point (you have heard this from me repeatedly): the U.S. food system focuses on feed for animals and fuel for automobiles.  It ought to focus on food for people.

The current situation:

• Most American farmland acreage is dedicated to animal feed and fuel production.
• Over the last 5 years, American consumption of chicken and exports of pork continued to climb, increasing demand for soy, a key feed crop for pork and poultry.
• Acreage of many key food crops including potatoes, sweet potatoes, sweet corn, tomatoes, apples, and oranges has fallen precipitously 20-90% from peaks in the 20th century.
• Exports fell and imports rose for vegetables, fruits, melons, and key food grains.
• Across produce items, the US was or became a net importer of all 5 of the top vegetables by 2021.

What can be done:

• At 2022 prices, just 3.5-4.4 million acres of higher value fruit, vegetables, and melons would be needed to generate $32.9B in sales, the 2022 size of the US produce trade deficit and more than the projected $27.5B
  overall ag deficit projected for 2024—this amounts to just 0.4% of US farmland.
• This could be accomplished by approximately doubling the amount of land currently harvested for these crops.

Policy (Legislative) recommendations for farmers who grow food for people:

• Improve crop insurance and risk management
• Expand market access

These analyses make these fixes look easy.  Make them happen!

Jerry Mande, a co-founder of Nourish Science wrote me to urge support for a national action plan to reduce obesity—and the chronic diseases for which it raises risks. (Note: he also has an op-ed in The Hill on NIH research and leadership needs).

Here is what we should do. It’s time for a new federal nutrition goal. For decades it’s been some variation of “access to healthier options and nutrition information.” Jim Jones [the new head of food and nutrition at FDA] used that last week in his vision for the new human foods program. It’s in USDA FNS’s mission too. The WaPo reporting on life expectancy, fatty liver disease, & Lunchables in school meals reveals that goal has failed and needs to be replaced.

The goal should be updated to: ensuring that every child reaches age 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health. Cory Booker proposed making it the U.S. goal in his attached letter to Susan Rice on the WHC [White House Conference]. It’s part of the Nourish Science vision.

It’s doable.  USDA has the necessary power, reach, and resources. Over half of infants are on WIC, 1/3 of children in CACFP [Child and Adult Care Feeding Program], virtually all in school meals, and almost ½ of SNAP recipients are under 18. If we leveraged those programs to achieve the new goal and with FDA’s & CDC’s help, we could make substantial progress. For example, USDA was able to raise school meal HEI [Healthy Eating Index] scores from failing U.S. average of 58 to an acceptable 82 in just three years.

We have a successful blueprint in FDA regulation of tobacco. When we began our FDA investigation in 1993 1/3 of adults and ¼ of kids smoked cigarettes. Today we have a $700M FDA tobacco center and 11% of adults and only 2% of high school students smoke cigarettes.

We should set the new goal in the upcoming Farm Bill. We should change USDA’s name to the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture and state the new goal.

The only needed ingredient to make this happen is an effective federal nutrition champion. That’s how tobacco happened.

I’m optimistic. We can do this.

I like the vision.  I’m glad he’s optimistic.  Plenty of work to do to get this on the agenda.

Some background

• The CDC on how nearly 70% of American adults are overweight or have obesity.
• My report on the White House Conference, a year ago
• Politico (Helena Bottemiller Evich, now at Food Fix)  on how diet- and obesity-related diseases are a huge public health problem, especially for COVID-19, but no government program exists to prevent them.
• Politico (Catherine Boudreau and Helena Bottemiller Evich) on how federal research on prevention of diet- and obesity-related diseases hardly exists.

How’s this for bad, but not unexpected, news: household food insecurity is up again. 

It’s especially up among households with children.

And it’s the worst in years.

Food insecurity declined during the pandemic because the USDA increased benefits and waived some restrictions to enable easier access.

Guess what: if you make sure people have the resources they need, their food insecurity declines.

If you reduce benefits, as Congress did when it declined to continue the pandemic benefits, food insecurity increases—and sharply, given what inflation is doing to food prices.

How’s this for evidence for the clear effects of good public policy followed by bad.

The remedy here is simple: restore the pandemc benefits.

Halloween is about candy, no?  Here are four thoughts on the topic.

I.  From CagleWorld.com

II.  From The CandyStore.com.

III.  From Consumer Reports: What 100 calories of Halloween candy looks like. 

IV.  From my son Charles, who forwarded this, I know not from where:

Enjoy the occasion!

Everything in moderation!

I’m talking about the mushrooms in grocery stores here, not the psychodelic varieties.  A reader who is a member of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, but wishes to remain anonymous, forwarded this message to members of the academy.

From: Mushroom Council <info@mushroomcouncil.com>
Date: August 18, 2023 at 11:04:09 AM EDT
To: [REDACTED]
Subject: Re: New, free meal plans for your clients + cognition research update
Reply-To: Mushroom Council <info@mushroomcouncil.com>

NUTRITION NEWS ABOUT MUSHROOMS  |

…Researchers have been exploring the potential role of mushroom consumption in cognitive function. While more research is needed, the emerging evidence is encouraging. Below are some highlights from the current body of evidence:

• • • • A cross-sectional study exploring the association between mushroom intake and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among 663 Singaporean adults aged 60 and older found that individuals who consumed more than two servings of mushrooms per week (1 ½ cups total) had reduced odds of having MCI compared to people who consumed mushrooms less than once per week.¹ Fresh golden, oyster, shiitake, and white button mushrooms; dried mushrooms; and canned button mushrooms were included in the analysis of mushroom intake.
      • A prospective cohort study examined the relationship between mushroom consumption and incident dementia in a population of 13,230 elderly Japanese subjects aged 65 and older.² Participants who consumed mushrooms one to two times per week and more than three times per week had a 5% and 19% lower chance of developing dementia, respectively, compared to people who consumed mushrooms less than one time per week. After further analysis by gender, an inverse relationship between mushroom consumption and incident dementia was only found in women.
      • A double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial investigated the impact of lion’s mane mushroom (Hericium erinaceus) supplementation on cognitive impairment among 30 Japanese men aged 50 to 80 years with MCI.³ Participants were randomized to two groups; one group took tablets containing lion’s mane in dry powder form three times a day for 16 weeks and other group was given a placebo. Participants were observed for four weeks after consuming the supplement for 16 weeks. Compared to the placebo group, the lion’s mane group showed significantly increased scores on the cognitive function scale, based on the Revised Hasegawa Dementia Scale (HDS-R), throughout the trial. Four weeks after stopping supplementation, the scores decreased significantly. The placebo group scores also showed significant increases at weeks 8 and 16, compared to the start of the trial. Researchers believe possible causes of an increase might be the placebo effect or familiarity with the cognitive function scale.
      • A cross-sectional study looking at the association between mushroom consumption and cognitive performance among 2,840 older adults aged 60 years and older found that greater mushroom intake was associated with certain cognitive performance tests.⁴

  Findings from cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies do not demonstrate cause and effect relationships – only associations. In addition, these studies cannot be generalized to the broader population, relied on self-reported dietary information which may not always be accurate, and residual confounding could have impacted the results even though researchers adjusted for a range of confounding factors, such as age, education, lifestyle behaviors, and more.

  Future clinical trials in broader populations will help shed light on the unique role of mushrooms in cognition and overall health.

  Sources:1. Feng L, Cheah IK, Ng MM, et al. The Association between Mushroom Consumption and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Singapore. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;68(1):197-203. doi:10.3233/JAD-180959 2. Zhang S, Tomata Y, Sugiyama K, Sugawara Y, Tsuji I. Mushroom consumption and incident dementia in elderly Japanese: The Ohsaki Cohort 2006 study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(7):1462Y1469. 3. Mori K, Inatomi S, Ouchi K, Azumi Y, Tuchida T. Improving effects of the mushroom Yamabushitake (Hericium erinaceus) on mild cognitive impairment: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Phyther Res. 2009;23(3):367Y372. 4. Ba DM, Gao X, Al-Shaar L, et al. Mushroom intake and cognitive performance among US older adults: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011-2014. Br J Nutr. 2022;128(11):2241-2248. doi:10.1017/S0007114521005195

Comment: This is typical of the kind of thing companies send out to dietitians nearly every day.  The Mushroom Council knows perfectly well that the probability of mushrooms having anything to do with improved cognitive ability has to be vanishingly small.  Its critique in the last paragraph tells you everything you need to know.  The Council sponsored some of the studies cited.  This is about marketing mushrooms.  If you like them, enjoy.  If not, don’t bother.  Note to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Such notices should be labeled clearly as advertisements.  Members should also be told how much companies pay the Academy for such mailings.

José Tenorio.  School Food Politics in Mexico: The Corporatization of Obesity and Healthy Eating Policies.  Routledge, 2023.  

I was asked for a blurb for this one:

From first-hand observations and deep research, José Tenorio makes it clear that school food in Mexico is about much more than feeding hungry kids; it’s about how food corporations have taken advantage of social inequalities to replace native food traditions with less healthful but profitable products.  School food politics, indeed!

This book may seem specialized, but it is a useful case study in the politics of school food—not confined to the United States, apparently.

Mexico leads the way in efforts to promote healthier diets.  It has  excellent dietary guidelines.   It also has warning labels on food products (see my post on these), soda taxes, a ban on trans fats, and other measures.

Mexico’s schools do not provide meals for kids in schools.  They sell foods at canteens.

The country set nutrition standards for foods sold in schools in 2011, but compliance is not great.

Public health and food advocacy groups support laws to ban unhealthy foods and drinks from schools.  Despite formidible industry opposition, this may actually happen.

This book provides evidence for why it should.