Search results: a life in food

I missed posting these last week (oops).

Blueberries set the standard for industry-funded studies (I discussed the origins of blueberry-industry funding in my book, Unsavory Truth).  Blueberry producers are still at it.  Here are two examples.

I.  This one started with a press release sent to my email:

From: Blueberries <updates@blueberrycouncil.org>
Date: August 29, 2023 at 11:59:59 AM EDT
Subject: Study Alert: New Research Links Blueberries to Gut Health Benefits

A new study published in Nutrients suggests blueberries may hold benefits for those suffering from functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID). In this study, FGID patients saw greater abdominal symptom relief and improved markers of well-being, quality of life, and life functioning after consuming freeze-dried blueberry powder for 6 weeks as compared to a placebo treatment.

The study: Wilder-Smith CH, Materna A, Olesen SS. Blueberries Improve Abdominal Symptoms, Well-Being and Functioning in Patients with Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders. Nutrients. 2023; 15(10):2396. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15102396.

Conclusion: Blueberries relieved abdominal symptoms and improved general markers of well-being, quality of life, and life functioning more than placebo in patients with FGID. Consequently, the polyphenol and fiber components of blueberries exert broad beneficial effects separate from the sugars present in both treatments.

Funding: This research was funded by a grant from the US Highbush Blueberry Council.

Comment: Of course it was.

II.  I read about this one in ConscienHealth.

Burning Fat with Wild Blueberries in 11 Athletes

This is nearly perfect clickbait that is just about meaningless for an average person in real life. Researchers did a study of fat oxidation after consuming freeze-dried powder from wild blueberries. They found an increased oxidation rate associated with consuming that powder in the 11 aerobically trained males they studied. So the press office at Cal Poly Humboldt, where the researchers work, issued a release saying wild blueberries help with burning fat.  From there, twitter and health reporters take the next leap, writing headlines like “eating wild blueberries can help you lose weight.”

The study: Pilolla KD, Armendariz J, Burrus BM, Baston DS, McCarthy KA, Bloedon TK. Effects of Wild Blueberries on Fat Oxidation Rates in Aerobically Trained Males. Nutrients. 2023; 15(6):1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15061339.

Conclusion: “Results indicate that WBs may increase the rate of FAT-ox during moderate-intensity activity in healthy, active males.”

Funding: “This research was funded by Cal Poly Humboldt’s Dean of Research.* Freeze-dried Wild blueberry powder was donated by the Wild Blueberry Association of North America (WBANA).“

Comment: I agree that simply providing product to be tested is not an earth-shaking conflict of interest, but because the powder came from the WBANA the ties seem closer.  In any case, the idea that blueberry powder—not nearly as delicious as the real thing—can have these kinds of effects should raise eyebrows from the get go.  Studies of the health effects of one sincle food always require critical thinking and more than a modicum of skepticism.

As for the asterisk*:  My son went to Humboldt State College (long before it was taken over by Cal Poly) so I was especially interested in this.

Christopher Bosso.  Why SNAP Works: A Political History—and Defense—of the Food Stamp Program.  University of California Press,  2023. 

I did a blurb for this book:

Why SNAP Works is a lively, up-to-the-minute account of the history of thie program formerly known as Food Stamps, and contested from its onset.  Bosso’s compelling explanation of the reasons SNAP survived—and deserves to–in the face of so much opposition, makes his book a must read.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, not least because Bosso is such an entertaining writer.

The book makes a strong case for his take-home message::

Yes, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program can be better.  But without it, millions of Americans would be worse off.  And if that sounds like faint praise, so be it.  The paradox of want among plenty has not disappeared.  Short of a system solution to poverty—the root cause of food insecurity—and in a land of so much food, often bordering on the obscene, SNAP at least ensures that all Americans get a better chance at a decent diet, a minimum element for a decent life, without sacrificing all personal autonomy and pride.

At a time when the Farm Bill is up for renewal and SNAP is under siege (again), the is book could not be more timely.

I hope everyone in Congress gets a copy and reads it.

Hey, I can dream.

I’ve just watched this four-part series on Netflix for two reasons, (1) the concept is fascinating and Dan Buettner does a great job with it., and (2) I’m in it in episodes #1 and #4.

Thanks to Martin Bruhn of Common Meadows Creamery for sending the screen shot.

I won’t go into all the details about the episodes, because Gothamist did a great job of reporting and analysis.

Buettner’s basic idea was to find out why a few relatively small and mostly isolated populations (“Blue Zones”) have so many members who live to the age of 100.

Spoiler alert: the secrets, no surprise, are diet (largely plant-based), physical activity built into daily life, community and social support, and a sense of purpose.

I am for all of these and that’s how I live, which explains my enthusiasm for these films.

Buettner works with cities to turn them into Blue Zones that support healthy diets, walking, and community support.

I got involved in this when Buettner invited me to join his team—and the Netflix crew—in South Phoenix where they were suggesting ways to Blue-Zone up the local environment.  I’m not a city planner but I could sure think of things that would make that part of Phoenix much more livable—parks, walking trails, shade trees (if they didn’t need too much water), stores selling fresh food, community gardens.

I like the concept a lot.  See the films and let me know what you think of them and those ideas.  Enjoy!

Last week, my industry-influenced study of the week involved kombucha, although the involvement appeared minimal.

All kombucha and placebo drinks were donated by Craft Kombucha. Craft Kombucha did not have any access to data reported in this study. No author has any financial ties with Craft Kombucha. SD was employed by MedStar Health. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

One of the authors of the study, Daniel Merenstein, wrote to object to the way I characterized it (quoted with his permission).

…But you do make it very clear in the article that all industry did was donate free drinks and had no access to data. Not sure how that really deserves being called influence. But my much larger point is this statement, ” It’s easy to find claims for its health benefits if you search for them, but much harder to find science to back them up.  IIf you can demonstrate benefits, you can sell more products.  Hence, this study.”

I think it is exactly the opposite. It is much easier to just say your product works or even better yet to get an influencer to drink your product.

But to actually put your product into scientist’s hands and have no access to data or publication is a huge step forward in food science. Look at JAMA every week, almost all the drug studies are -. The kombucha maker should be applauded for their bravery.

We didn’t going looking for a + outcome but registered our trial and stated a priori exactly what we would be looking at and reporting. This study has many limitations but not the ones you mentioned.

Dan

I appreciate thoughtful and respectful letters like this .  This one especially deserves a response.  Dr. Merenstein implies that this is an investigator-initiated study designed to test an investigator-initiated hypothesis.  Such things do happen.  Unfortunately, they are not the norm.

Here’ what concerned me about the study:

• It involved a kombucha company, even if lightly.  Much evidence demonstrates that company involvement in research ia highly correlated with positive outcomes, so much so that it has a name, the “funding effect.”
• Funding influence is thorougly demonstrated to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not intend to be influenced, are unaware of the influence, do not recognize it, and deny it (even in the face of much research to the contrary).  The unconscious influence usually shows up in the way the research question is asked or in the interpretation of the results.
• Statements that funders have no involvement in the research have coften been shown to be false.  Exceptions do occur; this may well be one of them.
• This is a one-food study.  It is impossible to control such studies for dietary and other lifestyle confounders unless done in a locked metabolic ward.

On this last point, I am always suspicious of one-food studies because I find it hard to believe that a single food can make a measureable difference in chronic disease outcome.

I would like to know a lot more about how the microbiome works before being convinced that kombucha has any special health benefits (I do think it is delicious).

To their great credit, these authors fully disclose the limitations of their study (it was small) .

Dr. Merenstein says this study is really about the science.  In this case then, the bias is one shared by all scientists—a belief and the desire to prove it,–in this case that kombucha has particular health benefits .  If scientists didn’t have such beliefs and desires, no science would ever get done.

Such personal biases are indeed quite different from bias induced by financial interests with a company making a product.

Perhaps I misjudged this one.  If so, I owe Dr. Merenstein and his colleagues a sincere apology, here offered.

I thank him for writing and giving me the opportunity to discuss these issues again.

(For detailed discussion and references on issues related to industry research funding, see my book, Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat).

Thanks to Arjan van Groningen for this one.

The study:  The Effect of Non-Nutritive Sweetened Beverages on Postprandial Glycemic and Endocrine Responses: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Zhang, R.; Noronha, J.C.; Khan, T.A.; McGlynn, N.; Back, S.; Grant, S.M.; Kendall, C.W.C.; Sievenpiper, J.L. Nutrients 2023, 15, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15041050.

Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that NNS beverages sweetened with single or blends of NNS have no acute metabolic and endocrine effects, similar to water. These findings provide support for NNS beverages as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs in the acute postprandial setting.

Funding: This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS). The grant was awarded through a competitive request for the proposal process. The sponsor was not involved in the development of the study protocol and design, execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to publish. The protocol and results were presented to the Low- And No-Calorie Sweeteners Scientific Committee of IAFNS on several occasions with an opportunity for scientific dialogue.

Comment:  IAFNS is the new name for ILSI North America, a classic industry front group.  To its credit, the authors disclose the involvement of IAFNS in this review.  Check out the Conflict-of-Interest declarations from this group; they are legendary.

Conflicts of Interest: J.C.N. has worked as a clinical research coordinator at INQUIS Clinical Research. He has also received research support from Glycemia Consulting Inc. T.A.K. has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), and the National Honey Board. He has taken honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council (IFIC) and the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS; formerly ILSI North America). He is funded by the National Honey Board. N.M., was a former employee of Loblaw Companies Limited, and is a current employee of Enhanced Medical Nutrition. She has completed consulting work for contract research organizations, restaurants, start-ups, the International Food Information Council, and the American Beverage Association, all of which occurred outside of the submitted work. S.M.G. has received honoraria from Dietitians of Canada and Diabetes Canada for the development and delivery of educational resources on the glycemic index in the past five years. C.W.C.K has received grants or research support from the Advanced Food Materials Network, Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada (AAFC), the Almond Board of California, Barilla, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canola Council of Canada, the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, the International Tree Nut Council Research and Education Foundation, Loblaw Brands Ltd., the Peanut Institute, Pulse Canada, and Unilever. He has received in-kind research support from the Almond Board of California, Barilla, the CaliforniaWalnut Commission, Kellogg Canada, Loblaw Companies, Nutrartis, Quaker (PepsiCo), the Peanut Institute, Primo, Unico, Unilever, and WhiteWave Foods/Danone. He has received travel support and/or honoraria from Barilla, the CaliforniaWalnut Commission, the Canola Council of Canada, General Mills, the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, the International Pasta Organization, Lantmannen, Loblaw Brands Ltd., the Nutrition Foundation of Italy, Oldways Preservation Trust, Paramount Farms, the Peanut Institute, Pulse Canada, Sun-Maid, Tate & Lyle, Unilever, and White Wave Foods/Danone. He has served on the scientific advisory board for the International Tree Nut Council, the International Pasta Organization, the McCormick Science Institute, and Oldways Preservation Trust. He is a founding member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), the Chair of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee for Nutrition Therapy of the EASD, and is a Director of Glycemia Consulting and the  Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. J.L.S. has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Research Fund, the Province of Ontario
Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, the Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR),  Diabetes Canada, the American Society for Nutrition (ASN), the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council (INC) Foundation, the National Honey Board (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey “Checkoff” program), the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS; formerly ILSI North America), Pulse Canada, the Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, the United Soybean Board (USDA soy “Checkoff” program), the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), the Plant Protein Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund which has received contributions from IFF), and the Nutrition Trialists Network Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council). He has received food donations to support randomized controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, the California Walnut Commission, the Peanut Institute, Barilla, Unilever/Upfield, Unico/Primo, Loblaw Companies, Quaker, Kellogg Canada, WhiteWave Foods/Danone, Nutrartis, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees and/or honoraria from ASN, Danone, Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, Nutrition Communications, the International Food Information Council (IFIC), the Calorie Control Council, the International Sweeteners Association, and the International Glutamate Technical Committee. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Perkins Coie LLP, Tate & Lyle, Phynova, and Inquis Clinical Research. He is a former member of the European Fruit Juice Association Scientific Expert Panel and a former member of the Soy Nutrition Institute (SNI) Scientific Advisory Committee. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, the European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves or has served as an unpaid member of the Board of Trustees and an unpaid scientific advisor for the Carbohydrates Committee of IAFNS. He is a member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), an Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD, and a Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His spouse is an employee of AB InBev. R.Z. and S.B. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Last week, I posted information and links to documents sent to me anonymously suggesting that the new Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR) had been influenced by the food industry to omit a statement in an earlier draft to reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.

I have no first hand personal experience with these recommendations and do not want to get in the middle of a dispute over the development of these guidelines.

I do feel strongly that the concept of ultra-processed is an enormous step forward in understanding how to eat more healthfully, backed up as it is by hundreds of observational studies and one extraordinarily well controlled clinical trial (Kevin Hall’s at NIH).  I think enough evidence exists, and the concept is well enough defined, to advise the public to eat less of highly processed food products.

Shortly after my post went online, I received the following letter from Norwegian researchers involved in the NNR process asking me to correct and clarify what I had posted.  I reproduce the letter here with their permission, and with thanks for our correspondence over this issue.  Read what they say and last week’s post, and decide for yourself.

July 12^th 2023

Dear Marion Nestle,

This email is from the Norwegian researchers involved with the recently published Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR2023), including the head of the working group.

We have read your books, followed your daily blogposts for years, and always appreciated your informative and thoughtful letters. However, your post Monday 10th July on NNR2023 and the chapter on ultra-processed foods (UPF) is misinformed, and we believe that your informant has misled you. We would appreciate the opportunity to answer the claims, one by one.

• You: “The backstory here is one of effective food industry lobbying”.
  • This is 100 % untrue. The committee has not been subject to any form of lobbying unless one considers responses to the public hearing as lobbying. In the public hearing, which you have a link to, you cite that we received 60 responses (or to be correct: 58 responses when subtracting the heading and an empty entry) to the UPF chapter, but as the same institution could have several entries, there were 39 unique responses. Of these, 27 represented industry or commercial interests in one way or the other, while 12 responses were from academia.
  • If you read the responses carefully, you will see that absolutely ALL the academic institutions argue that it is premature to give public advice on UPFs. The academic responses came from the following institutions: Lund University, Nofima (a food research institute), Natural Resources Institute of Finland, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU), Technical Research Centre of Finland, SINTEF Ocean (Norway), RISE Research Institute of Sweden, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chalmers Technical College, Sweden’s Agricultural University (SLU), Karolinska, University of Helsinki, University of Lund, Swedish Food Agency, University of Gothenburg, and University of Umeå. (There are more than 12 institutions because several of them merged their responses into one entry).
  • You do not mention that there were three independent peer-reviewers of the UPF review paper, none of which has ties to the food industry
  • It is first and foremost careful listening to the input from the peer-reviewers and the scientific inputs from the public consultation, combined with our own evaluation of the totality of the evidence, that made us land on not having a specific recommendation on UPFs.
    • The arguments against having a recommendation on UPF are nicely summed up in this input to the public hearing (jointly signed by a number of scientists from Sweden): “In summary, the chapter introduces an unspecific concept that is controversial without a detailed discussion about its benefits and limitations. It is questionable whether the concept UPF adds anything beyond existing measures of diet quality since it is merely a proxy that includes both diet (nutrient) quality aspects, additives and processes. It is of outermost importance that NNR is based on solid scientific data and avoids speculations based on model studies and poorly defined exposures to maintain trust and credibility among the public and the research community. As researchers, we consider UPFs as an unspecific and non-scientifically defined concept that will make it difficult to study mechanisms and unravel causality. Instead, we suggest using existing and more well-defined and studied measures of diet quality and make efforts to come up with better ways of measuring food processing per see to allow a scientific evaluation of its potential implications for human health. This could be reflected in a narrative chapter that introduces and discuss the concept of UPF and food processing and their benefits and limitations in a balanced way as well as identifies scientific gaps in our understanding of the role of different processing and additives for health”.
    • As an example, whole-grain bread does not become unhealthy just because it is placed in the UPF group.
• You: “These negative views of the UPF concept differ from the views of the background document (however politely stated) and clearly were influenced by the overwhelmingly negative views of food industry representatives”.
  • Yes, the food industry representatives were negative, but as explained in the previous comment, so were absolutely ALL the Nordic scientists who responded in the public hearing. The result would have been the same regardless of the comments from industry.
• You refer to a summary in English available on online: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Kf4kuaD1wZNkQJyrdOHdQPvsDqY6O6pytizzBxfpRA/edit?lctg=102461686&pli=1 This is an anonymous summary, but likely written by the same person who is your informant
• You cite your informant who states the following: “I have come to realize that this is not at all about evidence. It’s about power, and who gets to define what’s important in nutrition science. “The establishment” refuses to accept that someone from Brazil, a country they regard as inferior, should be allowed to tell them they have been wrong in their nutritionism-approach. They claim NOVA is based on ideology, not science….And now this is getting in the way of public health”.

This is an outrageous claim and we wonder how anyone can accuse us of something like this. We have the deepest respect for Carlos Monteiro and have followed his research on UPF since he first published his hypothesis in 2009. Like him, we are deeply concerned about the rise of overweight and obesity worldwide and like him, we work on disentangling the causes. We find the UPF concept intriguing scientifically, but it’s premature to use the concept in public advice until it has been refined and better defined.

We are also surprised that you do not mention the large proportion of comments coming from the meat industry and farmer’s organizations regarding both health and sustainability aspects of meat consumption. They have of course been fervently opposed the science advice to reduce meat consumption to maximum 350 grams red meat/week, generating significant media attention and engaging with politicians to dismiss the report. This would itself certainly be an interesting case study. However, the committee again adhered to the science and did not succumb to lobbyism. The same goes for sugars, alcohol and other hot topics. This is contrary to the accusations that the recommendations were influenced by the food industry.

We regret to note that you have shared a letter containing misleading allegations regarding the NNR2023 results on UPFs. The unfounded accusations of NNR2023 seem to come mainly from persons who are also in opposition to the NNR2023 advice on reducing red meat intake, thus being in opposition to a more environmentally sustainable diet. Nonetheless, we do hope that you will look more closely into the final NNR2023 report (not the draft) and modify the damaging and untruthful assertions about the process.

Yours sincerely

Helle Margrete Meltzer, member of the NNR2023 committee, former research director at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health

Rune Blomhoff, head of the NNR2023 committee, professor at the University of Oslo

Jacob Juel Christensen, member of the NNR2023 committee, postdoc at the University of Oslo

Erik Kristoffer Arnesen, advisor to the NNR2023 committee, PhD student at the University of Oslo

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.