Search results: a life in food

The U.K.’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has released its statement on ultra-processed foods.

It dealt with the NOVA classification system (the one I used in yesterday’s post to define ultra-processed foods).  The committee does not like it much.

Assessment beyond the initial screen identified that the literature is currently dominated by NOVA, raising the risk that any limitations or biases present within the NOVA classification system may be replicated throughout the research literature.
While NOVA also met criterion 2 on a clear, usable definition and criterion 4 on the availability of data on inter-assessor agreement, assessment beyond the initial screen dentified less certainty on the clarity, reliability and feasibility of the system.

The SACN’s conclusions:

The SRs identified have consistently reported that increased consumption of (ultra-) processed foods was associated with increased risks of adverse health outcomes. However, there are uncertainties around the quality of evidence available. Studies are almost exclusively observational and confounding factors or key variables such as energy intake, body mass index, smoking and socioeconomic status may not be adequately accounted for.

…In particular, the classification of some foods is discordant with nutritional and other food-based classifications. Consumption of (ultra-) processed foods may be an indicator of other unhealthy dietary patterns and lifestyle behaviours. Diets high in (ultra-) processed foods are often energy dense, high in saturated fat, salt or free sugars, high in processed meat, and/or low in fruit and vegetables and fibre.

…The observed associations between higher consumption of (ultra-) processed foods and adverse health outcomes are concerning – however, the limitations in the NOVA classification system, the potential for confounding, and the possibility that the observed adverse associations with (ultra-) processed foods are covered by existing UK dietary recommendations mean that the evidence to date needs to be treated with caution.

Comment: Kevin Hall  et al’s well controlled clinical trial of ultra-processed versus merely processed diets is neither discussed nor cited in this statement.  Once again, I have no personal knowledge of how this statement was developed, but the U.K.s Soil Association has published a statement with the provocative title, Sticky fingers of food industry on government ultra-processed food review.

While we’re pleased that SACN has prioritised this review, and has acknowledged that ultra-processed foods are of “concern”, we’re disturbed that the committee’s conclusions may have been skewed by industry ties, conflicted financial interests, and a narrow framing of the science.

…But the committee is also guilty of losing the wood for the trees, failing even to raise concern about how ultra-processed foods have overtaken their own nutritional advice….Most people in the UK are failing to eat such a [healthy] diet, precisely because these foods have been displaced by ultra-processed products. The average child’s diet is more than 60% ultra-processed, and rates of obesity and ill health are rising sharply in turn. …SACN is oddly silent on case for re-balancing the diet and addressing the corporate capture of children’s food.

These omissions should prompt us to look more closely at the composition of the committee. SACN has sixteen members. One is a paid consultant working for Cargill, Tate & Lyle, and CBC Israel (a manufacturer and marketer of fizzy drinks such as Coca-Cola and Sprite); two are in receipt of funding from the meat and dairy industry; one is a shareholder in Sainsbury’s; and five are members of the American Society of Nutrition, which is funded by Mars, Nestlé, and Mondelez. Among SACN’s members is the Chair of International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe, a body that receives funding from some of the world’s largest food companies, such as Barilla, Cargill, Danone, General Mills, Mondelez, and PepsiCo; and two individuals with financial relationships with the British Nutrition Foundation, an organisation funded by British Sugar, Cargill, Coca Cola, Danone, Greggs, Kellogg, KP Snacks, Mars, McDonald’s, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Tate & Lyle, and Tesco. Two SACN members have been funded by Danone, one of the largest ultra-processed food companies in the world; one sits on the council of the Nestlé Foundation; and another is a former employee of Unilever, with current shares in the company worth “more than £5000”.

These declared interests do not imply corruption or bias on the part of SACN members, but they illustrate how pervasive are industry ties at the interface of science and policy.

The long-awaited report on aspartame from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the WHO and FAO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) are now out.  These agencies jointly issued two documents.

A press release

Citing “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans, IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B) and JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight.

A summary of the findings

• The [IARC] working group classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on limited evidence for cancer in humans (for hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of liver cancer)…There was also limited evidence for cancer in experimental animals…In addition, there was limited mechanistic evidence that aspartame exhibits key characteristics of carcinogens, based on consistent and coherent evidence that aspartame induces oxidative stress in experimental systems and suggestive evidence that aspartame induces chronic inflammation and alters cell proliferation, cell death and nutrient supply in experimental systems.
• The [JEFCA] Committee concluded that the data evaluated during the meeting indicated no reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The Committee therefore reaffirmed the ADI of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame…Based on the results of the oral carcinogenicity studies of aspartame, the absence of evidence of genotoxicity, and a lack of evidence on a mechanism by which oral exposure to aspartame could induce cancer, the Committee concluded that it is not possible to establish a link between aspartame exposure in animals and the appearance of cancer.

If this feels crazy-making, I’m with you.

For starters, I’ve never seen a scientific report released this way—essentially by leakage and press release before the research is published where it can be reviewed independently.

To summarize the chronology:

• June 29: Reuters releases leaked information that aspartame is soon to be declared a carcinogen (I wrote about this in a post on July 6)
• June 29: American Beverage Association releases statement: “There is a broad consensus in the scientific and regulatory community that aspartame is safe.”
• July 1: Vox publishes a an article with the provocative title, “The WHO is about to declare aspartame can cause cancer. Here’s why you should listen.”
• July 12: Reporters tell me that they participated in a press conference with WHO and IARC to discuss what the reports will say when they are released at 12:30 a.m. ET on July 14.
• July 12: Anahad O’Connor writes in the Washington Post: “Does aspartame pose a health risk? Here’s what the science says” (I’m quoted in it).
• July 12 and 13: The agencies send reporters copies of press releases on embargo (see above), but not the published data.
• July 13: Reporters get copies of a statement from the FDA disagreeing with IARC.
• July 14:  Everything comes off embargo, including these four pieces:

1. Research article in Lancet Oncology:  Carcinogenicity of aspartame, isoeugenol, and methyleugenol 
2. Infographic
3. Q & A
4. Featured News page on the evaluation of aspartame

Here’s what I think of all this: if aspartame is a carcinogen, it’s a weak one.

But it is artificial and off my dietary radar.  It’s not essential in human diets.  I don’t like its taste and I don’t like all the iffy questions about how it is metabolized.  I avoid it.

You don’t want to avoid it?  JEFCA says you can have 9 to 14 cans of diet soda a day without exceeding tolerable limits.  If you want one once in a while, it is highly unlikely to hurt you.

But a much better idea is getting out of the sweetened-drinks habit.  If you must have something sweet to drink, try adding fruit juice to water.

I was deluged with interview requests last week over the rumor that the World Health Organization will soon release reports stating that the artificial sweetener aspartame is “possibly” carcinogenic.

I say rumor, because the reports will not be released until July 14.

According to Reuters—Exclusive: WHO’s cancer research agency to say aspartame sweetener a possible carcinogen -sources—two sources leaked the conclusion.

Aspartame, used in products from Coca-Cola diet sodas to Mars’ Extra chewing gum and some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research arm, the sources told Reuters…. Last month, the WHO published guidelines advising consumers not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control. The guidelines caused a furore in the food industry, which argues they can be helpful for consumers wanting to reduce the amount of sugar in their diet.

From what I hear from my own sources, everyone involved in the forthcoming reports is bound by confidentiality agreements.  They suspect that food industry representatives did the leaking.

This gives the industry plenty of time to complain and lobby.  As one report has it, “Industry experts and trade groups are decrying the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s pending addition of aspartame to a list of possible carcinogens for humans as unscientific and politically motivated.”

Aspartame has been under scrutiny for its potential harm to health practically from the time it first appeared. (see Laura Reiley in the Washington Post on how aspartame has come under scrutiny lately).

Center for Science in the Public Interest has long said of aspartame, Avoid.

Aspartame (sometimes marketed under the brand names Equal, NutraSweet, or AminoSweet) is a chemical combination of two amino acids and methanol. Questions of cancer and neurological problems, such as dizziness or hallucinations, have swirled around aspartame for decades…In 2005, researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy…found that rats exposed to aspartame starting at eight weeks of age and continuing through their entire lifetimes developed lymphomas, leukemias, and other tumors, including kidney tumors, which are extremely rare in the strain of rat used. In 2007, the same researchers published a follow-up study that exposed rats to aspartame beginning in the womb and continuing through their entire lifetimes. That study, too, found that aspartame caused leukemias/lymphomas, as well as mammary (breast) cancer. Then in 2010, they published a study that exposed mice to aspartame, starting in the womb and continuing throughout their entire lifetimes. That third study found that aspartame caused liver and lung cancer in male mice.

US Right to Know says of Aspartame, “Decades of Science Point to Serious Health Risks.”

But the FDA says “aspartame is safe for the general population when made under good manufacturing practices and used under the approved conditions of use.”

And the American Cancer Society says you would have to drink 36 cans of diet soda a day to excede the Acceptable Daily Intake level.

Rumors and concerns about aspartame causing a number of health problems, including cancer, have been around for many years. Some of the concerns about cancer stem from the results of studies in rats published by a group of Italian researchers, which suggested aspartame might increase the risk of some blood-related cancers (leukemias and lymphomas). However, later reviews of the data from these studies have called these results into question. The results of epidemiologic studies (studies of groups of people) of possible links between aspartame and cancer (including blood-related cancers) have not been consistent.

A recent review says “The consumption of ASBs [artifically sweetened beverages] was associated with a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, all-cause mortality, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease incidence.”

As I mentioned a month or so ago, artificial sweeteners are taking a big hit these days and it looks like they are about to take another one.

In my intereviews, I pointed out that what’s news here is the level of authority.  It’s a big deal that WHO is saying this.

Two other points.

• Aspartame is not essential in the diet.  Nobody (except soft drink companies) need it.
• It and other artificial sweeteners are artificial and, therefore, ultra-processed.
• I’m already seeing “no aspartame” labels on soft drinks and food products.

I am looking forward to seeing the data when the reports are published.

This has not been a good year for artificial sweeteners.

The World Health Organization says don’t use them for weight control and don’t give them to children.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review of the available evidence which suggests that use of NSS does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. Results of the review also suggest that there may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.

US Right to Know says: Aspartame: Decades of science point to serious health risks  

• Dozens of studies have linked the artificial sweetener aspartame to serious health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, seizures, stroke and dementia, as well as negative effects such as intestinal dysbiosis, mood disorders, headaches and migraines.
• Evidence also links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite and obesity-related diseases.

Thanks to Bill Marler for keeping us all up to date on the Daily Harvest saga.  He keeps up with the literature and writes, Is the Tara mystery closer to being solved?

My most recent post on this mystery was almost a year ago.

To review: Daily Harvest is a company that makes and ships preprepared vegan frozen meals, one of which, French Lentil + Leek Crumbles, has been recalled after several hundred people who ate it developed serious problems with their livers and gall bladders.

This was no trivial incident.  The FDA reported “As of 10/18/2022, there were 393 adverse illness reports in 39 states with 133 hospitalization and 0 deaths.”  But it could not detrmine the specific cause or route of contamination.

My post had breaking news:

The ingredient that caused the illnesses among people who consumed Daily Harvest’s French Lentil + Leek Crumbles has been identified, sort of.  As suspected, it’s the tara flour.  But what’s the toxin in the tara flour?  That, we still don’t know.

Now we have a new study: Is Baikiain in Tara Flour a Causative Agent for the Adverse Events Associated with the Recalled Frozen French Lentil & Leek Crumbles Food Product? A Working Hypothesis. 

In summary, the results of these initial studies support a working hypothesis that the adverse events reported by individuals consuming the Daily Harvest Crumbles product originate from the tara flour ingredient and are due, at least in part, to high levels of nonprotein amino acids (e.g., baikiain). It is further hypothesized that in vivo metabolism of metabolically unstable baikiain results in a toxic metabolite(s) that depletes glutathione and/or is an irreversible enzyme inhibitor (for L-pipecolate oxidase), resulting in adverse events which are dependent on the dose consumed and potentially exacerbated for individuals that have specific genetic predispositions.

Baikiain, which I had never heard of, is an analog of the amino acid proline.  In bacteria, it catalyzes proline destruction.  If it does this in humans, it also might account for the liver toxicity experienced by people who ate the Daily Harvest frozen meals containing tara.

The authors of the tara flour study identified baikiain in the flour.  They gave baikiain to mice, who did not fare well with it.

The hypothesis here is that some people are more susceptible to the toxic effects of baikiain than others.  The French Lentil + Leek Crumbles were sent to 26,000 customers, of which 400 or so got sick, more than 100 of them badly enough to have to be hospitalized; some required surgery.

The lesson here is that food ingredients need better testing.   Whoever makes tara must consider it GRAS (generally recognized as safe) for human consumption.

As Tom Neltner writes,

Tara flour is yet another example of how FDA’s GRAS program is broken—putting the health of Americans at unnecessary risk. FDA should use its big food reboot to fix the program so that we can have confidence in the safety of our food. The agency should also work with members of Congress who have introduced bills intended to fix GRAS and to have FDA reevaluate old food safety decisions in light of new science.

Amen to that.

Here’s another one that several readers have asked me about: Multivitamin Supplementation Improves Memory in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.  Authors: Lok-Kin Yeung, Daniel M. Alschuler, Melanie Wall, Howard D. Sesso, JoAnn E. Manson, Adam M. Brickman.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.05.011

The study: “Participants were randomly assigned to a daily multivitamin supplement (Centrum Silver) or placebo and evaluated annually with an Internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests for 3 y.”  Primary outcome measure: change in episodic memory (immediate recall performance on the ModRey test, after 1 y of intervention).  Secondary outcome measures: changes in episodic memory over 3 y of follow-up,  and in performance on neuropsychological tasks of novel object recognition and executive function over 3 y.

Results: “Compared with placebo, participants randomly assigned to multivitamin supplementation had significantly better ModRey immediate recall at 1 y, the primary endpoint (t(5889) = 2.25, P = 0.025), as well as across the 3 y of follow-up on average (t(5889) = 2.54, P = 0.011). Multivitamin supplementation had no significant effects on secondary outcomes…we estimated that the effect of the multivitamin intervention improved memory performance above placebo by the equivalent of 3.1 y of age-related memory change.”

Conflict of interest: HDS, JEM, and AMB received investigator-initiated grant support to their institutions from Mars Edge. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon) provided support through the partial provision of study pills and packaging. HDS received investigator-initiated grants from Pure Encapsulations and Pfizer Inc and honoraria and/or travel for lectures from the Council for Responsible Nutrition, BASF, NIH, and the
American Society of Nutrition during the conduct of the study. No funding sources had a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Funding: This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc dedicated to nutrition research. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon) provided support through the
partial provision of study pills and packaging.

Comment:  This study continues to surprise me.  As I’ve written before, it is part of the COSMOS trial, which is also supported by grants from NIH and a private foundation.  In my previous post on it, I noted that despite being funded by Pfizer (which makes Centrum Silver multivitamin supplements), the study did not show benefits of the supplement for prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer—a rare exception to the rule that industry-funded studies tend to favor the sponsor’s interests.  But here we go again, this time with an equally surprising result but for a different reason: most multivitamin studies have shown no benefits whereas this one says if you take Centrum Silver, it will give you another three years of no loss in memory.  Wow!  I’ll be Pfizer is thrilled.

Here’s what the NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health says about multivitamins:

I’m just getting to this report from Food and Water Watch: The Economic Cost of Food Monopolies: Dirty Dairy Racket

Food & Water Watch took a look at what’s happening to the U.S. dairy industry.  Its conclusions are not surprising if you have been following these trends.

• Big dairies have driven out small.  Only about 30 percent of all U.S. milk is produced on family-scale farms.
• Dairy is not profitable.  “Thanks to the gutting of federal supply management policy,” overproduction and increased production costs gave caysed milk prices to plummet.
• Consolidation doesn’t help.  Three dairy coops control 83 percent of milk sales: DFA (Dairy Farmers of America), Land O’ Lakes, and California Dairies, Inc.).

Here’s one comparison: Dairy association CEP salaries as compared to dairy farmer income.

The next Farm Bill could help fix some of this by:

• Restoring supply management
• Stopping proliferation of factory dairy farms
• Reforming the farm safety net
• Setting fair prices

Welcome to New York City ‘s new “Eat A Whole Lot More Plants” campaign “to put scrumptious sprouts and piquant produce on New Yorkers’ menus.”

The Health Department launched a new campaign that urges New Yorkers to put plants on their plates and adopt a healthy balanced diet full of whole foods. Whole and minimally processed plant foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, and nuts are good for health as they are high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals and don’t come packaged with high amounts of sodium, added sugar, or unhealthy fats. The campaign titled “Eat A Whole Lot More Plants” highlights how eating a diet with lots of plants is one way to improve health and can help manage and reduce risk of type 2 diabetes.

The campaign begins with video ads.

It includes  ideas to increase intake of tasty shrub grub, like fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, and whole grains.

It “builds on the Mayor’s commitment to improve the food environment and combat climate change throughout New York City. ”

The campaign includes:

• Plant-powered Fridays in public schools.
• Updated NYC Food Standards for Meals and Snacks Purchased and Served and for Food, Vending Machines on City Property.
• Plant-based meals in public hospitals.
• Commitment to reduce absolute carbon emissions from food purchases across city agencies by 33% by 2030.
• A new partnership with the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) to provide every New York City health care practitioner with free introductory training in lifestyle medicine with a special focus on plant-based nutrition.
• An expansion of NYC Health + Hospitals’ (H+H) groundbreaking lifestyle medicine services at six new sites across all five boroughs to provide patients living with chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure the tools, support, and guidance to treat and prevent common conditions using lifestyle interventions including a plant-predominant eating pattern.

I hope it also includes an evaluation.  Let’s try it and see if it works!