Healthy Food America is relatively new on the food advocacy scene but I am always impressed by the useful resources it produces.

It is my go-to place for information about soda taxes and other ways to reduce sugars and sugary drinks.

It offers, for example:

• Soda tax maps
• Report with Ninjas for Health on Coca-Cola’s involvement with researchers and reporters
• Toolkit for advocates working to reduce sugars
• Research Watch summaries
• Daily news feed

Useful?  Yes!

I received this inquiry from a reporter wanting a comment:

Hi, Marion, I’m doing a story about the trend of waters that claim to have extra health benefits because of their added “molecular oxygen” or “molecular hydrogen.”

Another reporter asked

I’m looking for comment on whether regularly drinking bottled water with a pH as low as 4 could stress the system, etc….the story I’m writing goes into more detail on the how and why of low-pH waters and how they may or may not affect health.

My first reaction: you have to be kidding.

I think these waters are hilarious—products of brilliant marketing.

The basic facts:

• Water is two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, neutral in acidity.  The body has a terrific buffering system to keep the blood at exactly the right level of neutrality (pH 7.35-7.45).
• Stomach contents are extremely acid: pH 1.5-3.5.
• Gases in water quickly equilibrate with air.

At the Fancy Food Show, I picked up a plastic pouch of hydrogen-infused water

clinically proven [no references or data given] to help reduce inflammation and is a powerful source of antioxidants.  It’s perfect for your workout, beauty, and overall daily routine.”

This product also claims to provide anti-inflammatory benefits, relieve fatigue and jet lag, improve fitness performance, boost energy, and enhance circulation and cell function.

I asked what it tasted like.  Water, they said.

It did.

• The upside: harmless.
• The downside: silly.

Caveat emptor.

Food politics generally doesn’t usually get into matters of religion, but sometimes has to.   Today’s issue is whether bread for the Catholic Eucharist can be gluten-free.

No, it can’t.

As the New York Times explains,

The unleavened bread that Roman Catholics use in the celebration of Mass must contain some gluten, even if only a trace amount, according to a new Vatican directive.

The directive…affirms an existing policy. But it may help to relieve some of the confusion surrounding church doctrine on gluten…The issue is especially urgent for people with celiac disease…or for those with other digestive conditions that make them vulnerable even to small amounts of gluten… “The confusion can be great when these ‘breads’ are advertised as gluten-free alongside what are described as gluten-free but are in fact low-gluten altar breads,” according to the Catholic Church in England and Wales. “The confusion can also be the cause of great upset both to those Catholics who are allergic to gluten and to those who minister to them.”

People with celiac disease cannot eat wheat, rye, or barley, which contain gluten proteins.  If they do,  the gluten leads to a toxic product that causes severe damage to the intestinal tract and other serious symptoms.

About 1 out of every 133 people has this condition.  This prevalence has remained constant over time.  But the number of people consuming gluten-free diets has greatly increased.  This could be because people just feel better not eating bread and pasta, or maybe because their celiac disease has just not been diagnosed.

The Hartman group has a useful Infographic about gluten-free trends.

Fortunately, lots of gluten-free products are now available, even if some Catholic jurisdictions forbid them.

NPR talks about one option option for gluten-avoiding Catholics:

That is where the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration of Clyde, Mo., come in. After a decade of work, they came up with a Vatican-approved wafer, using wheat starch and water. It contains just .001 percent gluten, an amount low enough for most celiac sufferers…They sell about 15,000 breads per week…”We believe Communion is the actual body of Christ and that’s the center point of our liturgy as Catholics — being able to receive Jesus.

What about other religions?  My inside source at the Episcopal Grace Cathedral in San Francisco tells me that its services use

bread rather than wafers for communion, and almost always have a gluten-free alternative on hand (the bread is baked fresh for this purpose by the Bread Ministry!).

The purpose of doing this is “to make everyone feel welcome and included.”

Amen to that.

Here’s another one of this site’s roundup of articles on specific topics, written from the perspective of food companies.  Paleo sells.

Special Edition: Paleo: Fad, Trend, or Movement?

Definitions vary, but most advocates of the Paleo diet think the dietary rot set in once humans stopped hunting and gathering and started to grow crops and raise animals for food. So grains, legumes, and dairy are typically off limits (although some Paleo fans say grass-fed dairy is OK). While critics say any diet that eliminates major food groups should be treated with caution, the number of products featuring Paleo claims and certifications is growing rapidly, and many retailers and manufacturers are now looking at how to tap into the trend, which some market researchers see as the next evolution of low carb, and gluten-free.

• Natural channel still accounts for bulk of Paleo product sales, but sales in conventional channels are growing faster, says SPINS: Where are Paleo-positioned products thriving? SPINS data break it down by channel and category… Read
• Low-carb, gluten-free and now Paleo… Another anti-grain fad or a true concern for bakers?: Bakers shouldn’t worry too much about Paleo, but the trend does call for increased grain education and better industry innovation, warn grain advocacy groups… Read
• Whole30 certification helps brands boost exposure, sales and shelf space: Certifying a product as approved by the popular Whole30 diet is a “pretty intensive” process, according to the diet’s co-creator, but for the few and proud that make the cut, the licensing deal can provide exposure to a fiercely loyal consumer base, boost sales significantly and help secure shelf space in competitive categories… Read
• PALEO IN FOCUS: Are we ‘supposed’ to drink cow’s milk? It’s the wrong question, says professor: ‘Paleo’ fans argue that the dietary rot set in when we stopped hunting and gathering and started producing foods (dairy, grains, legumes) our bodies are not adapted to digest. But does the theory behind this approach hold water?.. Read
• Passionate paleo followers can fuel brand awareness, sales for compliant packaged products: Between 1 to 3 million people in the United States follow the paleo diet, and yet relatively few packaged products comply with the regime – making it a market brimming with potential that once tapped could quickly drive brand awareness and sales, according to the co-founders of frozen dessert brand Snow Monkey… Watch now
• What’s the size of the Paleo foods prize? Mintel and IRI weigh in: Paleo themed product sales could soar to $4bn in the US in the next three years if enough manufacturers invest, according to IRI, although Mintel says we’re not looking at the next Greek yogurt… Read
• Paleo certification requests have doubled annually, scheme embraced by ‘household names,’ says Paleo Foundation: Demand for Paleo-certified products are on the rise. But is the diet – and the certification scheme – based on sound science? We chat with Paleo’s critics and proponents to get the inside scoop… Read
• Our Paleo ancestors were more active than us, but did they really have an optimal diet?: Supporters of the ‘Paleo’ diet (a hunter/gatherer-style approach to eating) urge us to eschew grains, dairy and legumes – among other things. But any diet that eliminates major food groups should be treated with caution, argue two high-profile dietitians we quizzed as part of our weight management special edition… Read
• Meteoric sales growth at Primal Kitchen: ‘Things just exploded as soon as we launched’: “We did everything you’re not supposed to do,” observes the COO of Primal Kitchen, which exploded out of the blocks with a sugar-free avocado oil-based mayo in February 2015, notched up revenues of $13.2m in 2016, and is expecting to almost double that in 2017. ..

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has a new report out calling for better federal oversight of memory supplements.

These are a growing market with sales estimated at $643 million in 2015, almost double since 2006.

FDA and FTC share oversight of memory supplement labeling and advertising, respectively, but neither approves claims in advance.  For this, thank the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which pretty much lets supplement makers claim whatever they like for their products, as long as they word the claims carefully.

GAO found ads for memory supplements claiming that they would boost, enhance, improve, increase, or maintain a healthy memory.  They also made claims related to general brain health, cognitive function, and well-being.

Amazon sells these things. It advertises them like this:

Brain and Memory Booster – All Natural Formula- Brain supplement helps improve memory, mood, clarity and focus and protect against mental decline, depression, anxiety.

Do they work?

Alas, no, according to Consumer Reports.  But that doesn’t stop Americans from spending $91 million on them in 2015.

Really, something needs to be done about DSHEA.

Here’s the GAO report: Memory Supplements: Clarifying FDA and FTC Roles Could Strengthen Oversight and Enhance Consumer Awareness.
GAO-17-416.

• Report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-416
• Highlights: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684621.pdf
• Podcast: http://www.gao.gov/multimedia/podcasts/684501

All those non-milk “milks’ in the dairy section—soy, almond, cashew, hazelnut, pumpkin seed, flax, hemp, coconut—make the dairy industry unhappy.  Milk says the FDA, is the “lacteal secretion” from cows.

Government agencies can’t agree; the USDA wants to help soybean farmers and favors selling soy milk as milk.

This dispute, obviously, is about marketing advantage.

Now Food Chemical News has a nifty investigative report on the fight between USDA and FDA over soymilk in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines.

The Good Food Institute filed a FOIA request and got 1500 pages of emails dating from 2011.

The USDA likes “soymilk:” everyone knows what it is.

The FDA prefers “fortified soy beverage” to indicate that the soy product does not have the same nutrient composition as cow’s milk.

This marketing dispute involves lawsuits, petitions, and more, according to the Associated Press account.

As I’ve written earlier, this is about market share.  Let them fight it out.

In the meantime, I don’t have any trouble telling which is which, and I’ll bet you don’t either.

Monsanto’s corporate behavior has been so counterproductive that it has damaged the reputation of the entire food biotechnology industry (I document this in Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety).

What to do?

How about convincing journalists that food biotechnology is the solution to the world’s food problems and that any criticism of it is a critique of science in the same category as climate-change denial (as I told Thacker).

The journalist Paul Thacker explains that strategy in an article in today’s Progressive.

In recent months, media outlets have reported on a disturbing trend of corporate-sponsored journalism. The British Medical Journal exposed a multiyear campaign by Coca-Cola to influence reporters covering obesity by secretly funding journalism conferences at the University of Colorado. The watchdog group Health News Review reported that two journalism professors at the University of Kansas asked more than 1,100 health-care reporters about their views on opioids in a survey that was funded, in part, by the Center for Practical Bioethics, a group the U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigated for its ties to opioid manufacturers…Hints of the biotech industry’s media tactics have leaked from court cases filed against Monsanto alleging glyphosate causes cancer. Several filings reference internal Monsanto documents that describe the company’s social media strategy called “Let Nothing Go”—a program in which individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry rapidly respond to negative social media posts regarding Monsanto, GMOs, and agrichemicals.

His article describes the fierce industry pushback against anyone who raises questions about food biotechnology.

I know about that pushback firsthand.  That’s why this site no longer accepts comments.

We need open discussion about issues related to food biotechnology.  This article is a good place to begin.

I am a big fan of Wendell Berry, the inspiring Kentucky professor and farmer, long a leading and inspiring proponent of agrarian values.  He displays these values in his own life—he walks the talk—as well as in his many books, poems, and, these days, tweets (@WendellDaily).

Now there is a movie about him, “Look and See: A Portrait of Wendell Berry.”  It’s a lovely and touching film about Berry’s early start and young family.  His wife and daughter appear in the film, but the contemporary man does not.  He says he doesn’t do movies (a position with which I am increasingly sympathetic).

The film documents what industrial agriculture has done to rural America—emptied it of people, communities, and a way of life (as Berry puts it, the Russians did this with police; we did it with economics).

The film also shows how going  back to a more sustainable production system is good for soil, animals, and food, and makes farmers better off and happier.

This may sound like fantasy, but here is the Union of Concerned Scientists with a new report documenting precisely those benefits: Rotating Crops, Turning Profits.

As UCS scientific director Ricardo Salvador wrote me in an email:

A valid critique of the [crop rotation] system, for all its benefits (saves soil, cleans water, reduces inputs and chemical pollution, increases biodiversity, reduces pest pressure, boosts yields and profitability), is that not all Iowa farmers could adopt the system without reducing supply of corn/soy, increasing their price, and thereby driving farmers back to the system. What is the economic equilibrium point? It is an important question.

The short of it, after our economist’s painstaking analysis, is that 20 – 40% of current Iowa corn/soy acreage could be transferred into the system without distorting market dynamics. Interestingly, approximately that amount of corn/soy land in Iowa is highly erodible and should not be in that system to begin with. Farmers attempt to force the issue because of current policy incentives. If instead that ground were put into the extended rotation, it would save megatons of soil and billions of dollars of environmental and health damage annually… All of this, at great profit to the farmer—it should not be forgotten.

This is important work and it’s just thrilling that the Register is writing about it.  I hope everyone in Iowa reads the editorial and pays attention to its lessons.

• Executive summary
• Full report
• Technical appendices
• Editorial in the Des Moines Register