Austin Frerick.  Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry.  Island Press, 2024.  With an Introduction by Eric Schlosser.

Wow.  This is one important book.

Frerick’s thesis is that a small number of individuals or families have been allowed to accumulate unconscionable levels of wealth by exploiting or getting around laws (mostly legally but sometimes with bribes), pressuring government to collude, and doing everything possible to enrich themselves at the expense of community and worker welfare—all in the name of low food prices for consumers whether or not they are the reality.

Frerick takes on family enterprises in pigs, grain, coffee, dairy, berries, animal slaughter, and groceries.

This is one tough book.  Frerick structures the chapters to describe the rise of the families’ fortunes, how they exploited rules and customs, and how that got government to collude in giving these companies so much market share and power.

I learned a lot from every chapter, so much that I found myself checking references—-these are extensive—constantly to find our where he had gotten information I’d never seen before.

.About Walmart’s payment of low wages to employees, for example,  Frerick writes,

These low wages also obscure a generous hidden subsidy that the company receives from taxpayers. Many Walmart employees depend on government public assistance programs such as Medicaid (health care), Earned Income Tax Credit (a low-wage tax subsidy), Section 8 vouchers (housing assistance), LIOHEAP (energy assistance), and SNAP (food assistance), among others. In 2013, one estimate by congressional House Democrats found that taxpayers subsidized Walmart to the tune of more than $5000 per employee each year….In effect, instead of paying a living wage to these employees, the Walton family shifts the burden to taxpayers.

Not only that, but SNAP users spend a lot of their benefits at Walmart.

With some back-of-the-envelope math, I came up with a rough estimate that Walmart now receives somewhere around $26.8 billion each year from SNAP.

The chapter on JBS, the Brazilian company now one of four companies controlling 85 percent of meat slaughtering, is particularly worth reading for its documentation of the company’s use of bribery to achieve its ends.

If you want to know how corporations control the food supply, start here.

I learned about this from reading a headline in FoodNavigator-Asia: Mediterranean diet linked to reduced neurodegeneration in elderly Chinese.

This got my attention: Why would anyone be studying the Mediterranean diet in Chinese people.  The traditional Chinese diet, like that of the Mediterranean diet, is largely plant-based and strongly associated with health and longevity.

But here we have it.  Basically, they want to know if this diet works in Chinese as well as North American and Oceanic populations.  As so it does.

The study: Association of adherence to the Chinese version of the MIND diet with reduced cognitive decline in older Chinese individuals: Analysis of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey.  The Journal of nutrition, health and aging.  Available online 1 January 2024, 100024

• Purpose: This study aimed to assess the correlation between the Chinese version of the MIND (cMIND) diet and cognitive impairment in older Chinese individuals.  [MIND = Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay].
• Method: The cMIND diet score (cMINDDS) was calculated by assessing dietary patterns based on survey responses.
• Results: The increased cMINDDS was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment. Higher consumption of fresh fruits and nuts was associated with a decreased risk of cognitive impairment (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: [0.66, 0.89] and OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.58, 0.86], respectively).
• Conclusion: Adherence to the cMIND diet was associated with lower risks of cognitive impairment in older Chinese individuals.

About the diets

The MIND diet recommended 10 brain-healthy food groups (green leafy vegetables, other vegetables, nuts, berries, soybeans, whole grains, not fried fish, not fried poultry, olive oil, and wine) while avoiding five unhealthy groups (red meat and products, butter/margarine, cheese, pastries and sweets, and fast fried foods).

The cMIND diet comprises 12 components: staple food composition, quantity, fresh vegetables, mushrooms or algae, fresh fruits, fish, cooking oil, soybeans, nuts, garlic, tea, and sugar.

Here’s a quick comparison:

Comment:  Both diets are healthy.

Bottom line (can’t be emphasized enough, apparently): Eating a healthy diet is good for health.

In case you haven’t been keeping track, virtually all corn, cotton, and soybeans (and sugar beets not on this graph) are genetically modified. 

Not only that, but they take up more than half of all cropland in the United States.

And half the corn is used to fuel automobiles.

Monoculture, control of the food supply, and lack of biodiversity, anyone?

Science Magazine has this editorial headline: Reverse EU’s growing greenlash**

I learned about this one from a commentary from Yoni Freedhoff, MD: Kimchi: Not Magically Protective Against Weight Gain.

• The study: Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study.  BMJ Open.  2024 Jan 30;14(2):e076650.  doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076650.
• Participants: “This study analysed 115 726 participants aged 40-69 years enrolled in the Health Examinees study in Korea.”
• Results: “In men, total kimchi consumption of 1-3 servings/day was related to a lower prevalence of obesity (OR: 0.875 in 1-2 servings/day and OR: 0.893 in 2-3 servings/day) compared with total kimchi consumption of <1 serving/day. Also, men with the highest baechu kimchi (cabbage kimchi) consumption had 10% lower odds of obesity and abdominal obesity. Participants who consumed kkakdugi (radish kimchi) ≥median were inversely associated with 8% in men and 11% in women with lower odds of abdominal obesity compared with non-consumers, respectively.”
• Conclusions:  “This large cross-sectional study described the association between kimchi consumption and obesity. In conclusion, total kimchi consumption of 1–3 servings/day was shown to be reversely associated with obesity in men. Regarding the type of kimchi, baechu kimchi was associated with a lower prevalence of obesity in men, and kkakdugi was associated with a lower prevalence of abdominal obesity in both men and women. However, since all results showed a ‘J-shaped’ association, excessive consumption suggests the potential for an increase in obesity prevalence. As kimchi is one of the major sources of sodium intake, a moderate amount of kimchi should be recommended for the health benefits of its other components. In addition, further investigation and prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationship between kimchi consumption and obesity.”
• Competing interests: “HJ and SS have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study. Y-RY and SWH are members of the staff at the World Institute of Kimchi.”
• Funding: “This research was supported by grants from the World Institute of Kimchi (KE2201-1) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea.”

Dr. Freedhoff ‘s analysis of the data:

According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.

Comment: Why anyone would expect kimchi (spicy fermented vegetables such as cabbage) to affect obesity one way or the other is beyond me, but the World Institute of Kimchi must want more people to eat it.  Does anyone need an excuse to eat kimchi?  It’s great on its own without needing this kind of claim.  This study is about marketing, not science.

Tracey Harris and Terry Gibbs. Food in a Just World: Compassionate Eating in a Time of Climate Change. Polity Books, 2024. 

I blurbed it:

Food in a Just World is an up-to-the-minute introduction to issues of class, race, and gender—and species—in what we eat, as well as to how larger issues of economics and capitalism affect workers in the meat industry.  Whether you eat meat or not, the book convincingly argues that these issues demand serious attention.

Here’s what the publisher says about it:

Food in a Just World examines the violence, social breakdown, and environmental consequences of our global system of food production, distribution, and consumption. From animals in industrialized farming – but also those reared in supposedly higher-welfare practices – to low-wage essential workers, and from populations being marketed unhealthy diets to the natural ecosystems suffering daily degradation, each step of the process is built on some form of exploitation. While highlighting the broken system’s continuities from European colonialism to contemporary globalization, the authors argue that the seeds of resilience, resistance, and inclusive manifestations of cultural resurgence are already being reflected in the day-to-day actions taking place in communities around the world. Emphasizing the need for urgent change, the book looks at how genuine democracy would give individuals and communities meaningful control over the decisions that impact their lives when seeking to secure this most basic human need humanely.

I’m constantly being asked what food will look like in the future, so I’ve been collecting items about new-and-unusual foods headed our way.

Do these bode well for the future of food?  You decide.

New Foods

• New nutritional substitute? Donkey milk touted as potential ingredient for infant and ageing products: Researchers have argued that the rich and diverse content of proteins in donkey milk could promote cell growth and proliferation, stimulate the immune system, exert anti-ageing effects, and possess antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties…. Read more
• How can industry turn the tide on seaweed consumption?  In Europe, many consumers associated seaweed with the rotting, smelly kelp that washes up on beaches. How can industry cultivate consumer appetite for marine plants?… Read more
• Cactus cookies and banana peel snacks among foods of the future:  Several food products that were designed to regenerate the planet have been invited to the next stage of the Big Food Redesign Challenge…. Read more
• ‘Insects will be seen as normal food’: How industry is combatting consumer reluctance to eat insect protein:  Insects are not only thought to contain at least as much protein as conventional meat, but are also more environmentally sustainable. However, their novelty on the market poses challenges in consumer acceptance. How do start-ups persuade consumers to eat them?… Read more 
• Business Insider Starbucks launched a pork-flavored coffee in China:  The beverage, whose name translates into “Abundant Year Savory Latte,” is pictured with a slice of skewered pork perched on top of a mug.  .Read More

Cultivated meat

• Introducing meat–rice: grain with added muscles beefs up protein:  The laboratory-grown food uses rice as a scaffold for cultured meat…Using rice as the scaffold has the benefit of adding nutrition to the rice, with the beef–rice having a slightly higher fat and protein content than standard rice.
• Not halal just yet: Singapore Islamic Council says ‘more rigorous’ parameters must be fulfilled for cultivated meat to be halal-certified: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) has highlighted that cultivated meat still needs to meet a ‘more rigorous’ set of requirements to be halal-certified, even though it has been deemed potentially permissible for halal consumption…. Read more

Comment: It’s a brave new world out there.  Two issues:  (1) Is this stuff delicious?  (2) Will it make money?  Stay tuned.

A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post explains why the FDA should establish front-of-package nutrition labeling here and now: These countries are doing nutrition labels the right way

Christina Roberto, Alyssa Moran, and Kelly Brownell contrast the “stop signs you’ll see in Mexico, the Nutri-Score system used in France, or the Health Star Ratings in New Zealand” with the current lack of a system like those in the United States.

The only thing standing in the way: the food industry. It favors a label that displays grams or milligrams of key nutrients along with percent Daily Values — much like the Nutrition Facts Labelcurrently on the back or side of packages. ..By using symbols, colors and simple language, front-of-package labels adopted by other countries have educated people about what’s in their food, helped them make healthier choices and even encouraged companies to reduce salt and sugar in their products.

And here’s Fortune on the same topic, especially Nutri-Score.

This makes me think it’s time to review what’s happening in Europe with Nutri-Score.  I’ve written about this system previously, most recently here and about Its founder, Serge Hercberg’s, fights with the food industry here.

As a reminder, Nutri-Score accounts for nutrients but also sugar, salt, and saturated fat, in a composite grade A (eat) to E (avoid).

The food industry hates it.  For example, an article by authors with ties to industry argues that there is no independent evidence to support the value of Nutri-Score.  This induced Hercberg et al to rebut those points.

In response to some of these criticisms, the Nutri-Score team is updating its algorithm to respond to concerns about ultra-processing, among other matters.  See: Nutri-Score 2023 Update in Nature Food.

And despite the arguments, support for Nutri-Score is growing.  Authors not connected to Nutri-Score recommend it over other types of labeling for adoption by 27 EU nations.  See: Establishing an EU-wide front-of-pack nutrition label: Review of options and model-based evaluation.  Obesity Reviews, 07 February 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13719

Nutri-Score is currently used in seven European countries.  It is backed by the European Public Health Association and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The food industry can complain all it wants, I’m guessing Nutri-Score is here to stay.  It may not capture all ultra-processed foods, but it comes close and revising the design like this should help solve that problem.