McKay Jenkins.  Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet.  Avery, 2017.

I wrote my own book about GMOs, Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (revised and expanded edition, 2010).  Its first chapter and second half of the book are about the topic.  Many other books have written about GMOs, but I thought this one was good enough to blurb:

McKay Jenkins has done the impossible.  He has produced a remarkably fair and balanced account of the contentious role of GMOs in the U.S. food supply, calling the shots as he sees them.  Pro- and anti-GMO proponents will find plenty to argue with, but anyone wanting to understand what the fights are really about and why they matter will find this book a big help.

Advocates have been pressing USDA for years to (1) get data on what SNAP recipients buy with their benefits, and (2) permit pilot studies of what happens to purchases of soft drinks if you exclude them from the benefit package.

In 2012, I did a post on the 2012 SNAP to Health report.  Its recommendations:

1.  Protect SNAP benefits.
2.  Collect data

Lots of people have been trying to get USDA to produce data.  Anahad O’Connor, the author of the New York Times account, filed a Freedom of Information request with USDA.  In response, USDA sent him a report it had commissioned from IMPAQ, a “beltway bandit” consulting firm.  His story is here (I’m quoted).

Now we have a partial answer.  IMPAQ analyzed data from one large, unnamed retailer (could it be Walmart?).

Here’s USDA’s summary of the study (and here’s the complete study).

The USDA says the study shows that SNAP recipients buy pretty much the same amounts of what everyone else buys.

Summary category data show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households focused their spending in a relatively small number of similar food item categories, reflecting similar food choices. The top five summary categories totaled about half of the expenditures for SNAP households and non-SNAP households (50 versus 47 percent). Commodity-level data (in the full report) show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households made choices that may not be fully consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

My reading of the report suggests that in this study, SNAP recipients spent more of a combination of their SNAP benefits and their own private money on:

• Sugar-sweetened beverages
• Hamburger
• Frozen meals
• Salty snacks
• Lunch meats
• Flavored milk
• Kids cereals
• Frozen French fries
• Convenience foods in general
• Infant formula

The report does not discuss why these differences might exist but it would be interesting to find out.

If sugar-sweetened beverages really comprise 9.5% of purchases, that comes to $6 billion a year.

That’s why taking them off the list of eligible foods is worth a try.

Recent SNAP news

The USDA is sponsoring a pilot project to allow SNAP participants to buy foods online from certain retailers, including Amazon in three states, Fresh Direct in New York, and various grocery chains in other states.

The idea is to make it easier for SNAP participants to get access to healthier foods.

I hope the USDA is keeping score on what gets bought online, and whether foods cost more.  The benefits are not allowed to be used for delivery costs.

Just in the nick of time, the FDA has released rules on labeling added sugars.  and re-adjusting serving sizes, documents aimed at helping food manufacturers prepare for the sweeping update to Nutrition Facts labels set for 2018.

The FDA also released draft guidance for complying with the rules.  Here is one example from this Q and A:

7. How should I calculate the amount of added sugars in a fruit juice blend containing the juices of multiple fruits that have not been reconstituted to 100 percent (full-strength)?

If the juice blend is reconstituted such that the sugar concentration is less than what would be expected in the same amount of the same type of single strength juice (e.g., less than 100% juice), the added sugar declaration would be zero. If the juice blend is reconstituted such that the sugar concentration is greater than what would be expected in the same amount of the same type of single strength juice, the amount of sugar that is in excess of what would be expected in the same amount of the same type of single strength juice must be declared as added sugars on the label.

A separate draft guidance explains changes in serving sizes that also go into effect.

When does all this happen?  The rules became final in May but they do not have to be implemented until July 26, 2018.  Businesses with annual food sales below $10 million get an additional year to comply.

The elephant in the room?  Will the new administration step in and repeal the whole thing?

The relevant documents

• Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels Related to the Compliance Date, Added Sugars, and Declaration of Quantitative Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals
• Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance on Questions and Answers
• Draft Guidance for Industry: Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category
• Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance on Reference Amounts
• Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label

I always like to share FoodNaviagator-USA’s special editions—collections of articles on one theme, in this case, what’s happening with snacks from the industry’s perspective.

Special Edition: Snacking trends 

What’s hot in snacks? Sprouted grains? Posh jerky? Chickpeas? Gourmet marshmallows? What’s the difference between a meal and a snack, or are the lines becoming increasingly blurred? What’s a suitable portion-size? This FoodNavigator-USA special edition explores the hottest new trends and brands in the market.

• Consumers want tooth-friendly confectionery treats: Consumers don’t want to compromise – they want both sweet treats and good oral health. And of course great taste! Learn how Zerose^® erythritol delivers with this infographic highlighting a recent clinical study and proprietary consumer research…   Click Here
• yusō founder: The next generation of snacks is fresh, satisfying and healthy: Japanese onigiri – protein-filled sticky rice balls wrapped in crunchy seaweed – are gaining traction in US restaurants. But if yusō founder Sarah Sturtevant has her way, they could also give retailers convenient new savory options in their emerging refrigerated snacking sets… Read
• Serial snacker: Can Jason Cohen strike CPG gold again with Road Crew Crunch? Most entrepreneurs are lucky if they strike CPG gold once. Jason Cohen has done it multiple times, and reckons he could be onto a winner again with Road Crew Crunch, a simple combination of chocolate, nuts, rice and pretzels he discovered on a family vacation in Vermont… Read
• Perfect Bar CEO: The refrigerated snacking category is on fire: Getting retailers to give up valuable space in the chiller for nutrition bars was a tough sell when Bill Keith first started knocking on doors in 2006. Today, Perfect Bars are the third best-selling snack bar in the natural channel, and their success has prompted many retailers to completely rethink the way they merchandise snacks… Read
• Crunchsters secures financing to bring sprouted mung beans to the US snacks aisle: Most Americans are pretty clueless about mung beans, but Crunchsters – a Boulder-based start-up determined to put them on the culinary map – reckons it’s only a matter of time before the protein- and fiber-packed beans become an essential part of every retailer’s healthy snacks set… Read
• BjornQorn’s mission-driven sun-popped corn attracts both buyers and brand collaborations: The Brooklyn-based small-batch popcorn brand saw its sales double after a collaboration with Jeni’s Splendid Ice Cream, which used the snack in one of its summer flavors… Read
• Baby and toddler snacks often fall short on nutrition while marketing misleads parents, review reveals: Food manufacturers should voluntarily expand the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative for improving food advertising to children to include marketing of baby and toddler food and drinks, the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity recommends after it found marketing for baby and toddler snacks are likely to mislead parents about nutritional content… Read
• Startup brand DNX Bar bets on the meat bar category: Distributor United Natural Foods has signed a deal to distribute DNX Bar’s beef and bison meat bars. Founder John Rooney believes it’s a sign that the meat snack category is poised to exit the ‘trendy’ realm and become a new snack-aisle staple… Read
• Quinn Snacks removes more than gluten from pretzels, shows consumers its supply line: Historically consumers who wanted a gluten-free alternative to a wheat-based product had to sacrifice nutrition, taste or accept the presence of other common allergens in the ingredient list. .. Read
• Pasta Chips secures $3m cash injection: Pasta Chips has secured a $3m investment from Advantage Capital Agribusiness Partners, LP (ACAP), along with Silas Capital and Emil Capital Partners… Read
• What’s the size of the sprouted food prize? To Your Health Sprouted Flour Co – the Alabama-based supplier of the organic sprouted grains in Kashi’s cereals – has expanded its facility for the third time to meet surging demand, says founder Peggy Sutton, who is predicting revenues of $6m in 2016, 10-years after she first started sprouting grains in mason jars in her kitchen. .. Read
• Full of beans? BRAMI lupini bean snack firm raises $1.5m in seed funding round: BRAMI, the New York-based brand bringing the Mediterranean lupini bean to the snack aisle, has closed on a $1.5m seed round of funding led by Lerer Hippeau Ventures, AccelFoods and Enlightened Capital… Read
• Malted milk helps startup root cookies in nostalgia & be on cutting edge of current trends: The founders of startup Malt Shop Cookies are hoping to jumpstart their new ecommerce business by launching on Cyber Monday the online sale of their line of malted milk cookies before expanding into more traditional brick and mortar stores next year… Read
• Pulse Innovation Forum highlights: Introducing lupini beans, and do we need a ‘Got Milk?’ style campaign for pulses? From terminology (do US consumers get the word ‘pulses’?), to positioning (what are the key selling points?), and how to deal with flatulence questions, the recent FoodNavigator-USA Pulse Innovation Forum covered a lot of ground. Here are some of the highlights from the 60-minute session, supported by Ingredion, which is now available on demand. .. Read
• FOOD VISION USA 2016… THE TRAILBLAZERS: Hippeas carves out new territory in snacks, ‘What really gives me confidence is the level of consumer engagement’ Give peas a chance? It’s tough breaking into the ultra-competitive snacks market with a brand that resonates across all retail channels, but Hippeas – one of three winners in this year’s trailblazers challenge at Food Vision USA – has managed to pull it off. So what is founder Livio Bisterzo doing differently?.. Watch now
• Startup The Little Kernel shows when it comes to RTE popcorn smaller can be better: Based in part on the idea that good things come in small packages, the founders of The Little Kernel earlier this year launched a line of tiny pre-popped popcorn, which they say is sweeter, crunchier and easier to eat than regular sized popcorn because it won’t get stuck in consumers’ teeth… Read
• New Pop sets itself apart in crowded RTE popcorn category by offering first ‘skinless’ option: Already recognized by many as the epitome of a convenient and better-for-you snack, ready-to-eat popcorn is about to become even healthier and easier to enjoy, claim the founders of New Pop as it makes its US debut… Read
• Four emerging trends to watch in snacks in 2017: From sour and heat combinations to charred flavors and California garlic, Sensient Natural Ingredients outlines key flavor/ingredient trends to watch in the snacks category in 2017… Read
• Pure Growth Organic seeks to make organic accessible & acceptable to children: Rightly or wrongly, organic snacks often are stereotyped as “esoteric” products that sacrifice flavor and fun for nutrition and are “hard on the wallet” compared to their conventional counterparts, according to the CEO of Pure Growth Organic… Read

The Center for Science in the Public Interest sent out a press release yesterday to announce a lawsuit filed on behalf of the nonprofit Praxis Project.

The complaint says Coca-Cola and its trade association, the American Beverage Association (ABA), mislead the public when they trash the science linking sugary drinks to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and the like.

It cites the August 2015 account in the New York Times of Coca-Cola’s funding of the Global Energy Balance Network, which aimed to shift attention from poor diets as a cause of obesity to lack of physical exercise.  Coca-Cola spent $120 million on research from 2010 to 2015 that could cast doubt on evidence linking health risks to sugary drinks.

It also cites quotations from officials of Coca-Cola and the ABA and researchers they fund “making false and deceptive statements about sugar-sweetened drinks.”  For example:

• Coca-Cola’s senior vice president, Katie Bayne, claims that “[t]here is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity.
• “Simply put, it is wrong to say beverages cause disease,” the ABA stated in another release.
• One of the scientists funded by Coca-Cola, Dr. Steven Blair, stated that “there is really virtually no compelling evidence” that sugar drinks are linked to the obesity epidemic.

The complaint also charges that Coca-Cola paid dietitians to promote sugary drinks; it quotes one dietitian who suggested that an eight-ounce soda could be a healthy snack, like “packs of almonds.”

It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit fares.  Stay tuned.

I was a member of the commission that developed the SNAP to Health report.  We recommended getting more information about what foods SNAP participants purchase with their benefits and conducting pilot studies or taking sugary drinks out of the eligible items.

Now SNAP to Health has redesigned its website as a a virtual town hall for information and resources regarding food insecurity, obesity prevention, and the current state of federal food assistance programs.  It has also added sections for WIC resources.

Here’s the press release about the new site.

And here’s one more item about SNAP

Pushing for drug testing of SNAP recipients: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is still trying to do this in his state.  According to Politico, 

Wisconsin U.S. District Court Judge Charles Clevert threw out a lawsuit the state had filed against USDA in July 2015 that sought to prevent the department from blocking the state from implementing a drug-testing requirement for recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Clevert said Wisconsin filed suit too soon, because it did not allow USDA to formally reject the state’s new requirement. Normally, states request waivers from USDA when they want to add their own SNAP requirements, but Wisconsin filed its suit preemptively — leading Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to suggest shortly after the suit was filed that it was a political move by Walker, since he was a GOP candidate in the 2016 presidential race. (Walker ended his campaign in September 2015.)

“The reason why [Walker] hasn’t requested a waiver is because he knows it’s not going to be granted because the law is pretty clear,” Vilsack said at the time.

This is a bad idea.  I hope he forgets it.

The FDA recently published its Annual Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed in 2015 for Use in Food-Producing Animals.

The report finds bad news and good news.

The bad news :

The report shows that sales and distribution of all antimicrobials increased 1 percent from 2014 through 2015, tying for the lowest annual increase since 2009. The percentage of those antimicrobials that are considered medically important in human medicine increased by 2 percent from 2014 through 2015.

The good news: This ties for the lowest annual increase since 2009.

But here’s a summary of antibiotic use in animal agriculture:—9.7 million kilograms of medically important drugs (that’s about 20 million pounds) and another 5.9 million kilograms of antibiotics that are not important medically. (about 13 million pounds).

The report comes with a Q and A.  Here is an example:

Does a summary report exist for antimicrobial sales and distribution for human drugs?  Yes. Please see: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm261160.htm.

Then go to: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/UCM319435.pdf

3.28 million kilograms of selected systemic antibacterial drugs were sold during year 2010 and around 3.29 million kilograms were sold during year 2011. Active ingredient amoxicillin had the highest proportion of total kilograms sold of all selected systemic antibacterial drug products throughout the time period examined.

OK, but the objective needs to be to decrease use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture and use them only for treatment of illnesses, not prevention.

Gary Taubes: The Case Against Sugar.  Knopf, 2016.

The title of this book says just what it is: a legal brief arguing that sugar is the cause of just about everything that ails us: obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, of course, but also cancer, high blood pressure and, therefore, stroke, as well as gout and Alzheimer’s disease.

This book makes a different argument: that sugars like sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup are fundamental causes of diabetes and obesity, using the same simple concept of causality that we employ when we say smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.  It’s not because we eat too much of these sugars…but because they have unique physiological, metabolic, and endocrinological (i.e. hormonal) effects in the human body that directly trigger these disorders.

Sugar, Taubes says, is the basis of a simple unifying hypothesis—insulin resistance—to explain all of these conditions.  To make this case, he provides vast amounts of evidence: historical, observational, and interventional.

Is he right?  Many of his hypotheses are testable and it is greatly to his credit that he has organized the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSi) to do just that.

Taubes is an excellent writer, clear and compelling, and he covers an enormous territory here, from slavery to manipulation of research by the sugar industry.

I worry that focusing on one substance—sugar—smacks of “nutritionism,” reducing the complexities of dietary patterns and health risks to just sugar.   I also think questions remain about the dietary context in which we consume sugar, particularly calories but also complex carbohydrates (starch), which gets digested to sugar—glucose.  Should we not be worried about excess glucose on its own?

If I understand the last chapter correctly, Taubes ducks the question of how much sugar is OK to eat.  Or maybe it’s not ducking.  Maybe what he is saying is that the only safe level of sugar is none.

If so, that is well below the 10% of calories recommended as an upper daily limit by the US Dietary Guidelines and the World Health Organization on the basis of those committees’ reviews of the science.

Let’s get those hypotheses tested.

In the meantime, I am all for eating less sugar.

If this book encourages people to cut down on sugar, it’s all to the good.