Let’s do two at once—studies funded by gthe beef industry.

I.  BEEF AND MUSCLES

I learned about this one from a headline in Food Navigator — Europe’s daily newsletter: Muscle protein synthesis more successful with beef than plant-based protein in older people, study finds

One look at the headline and I wanted to know: Who paid for this?

The study:  Higher Muscle Protein Synthesis Rates Following Ingestion of an Omnivorous Meal Compared with an Isocaloric and Isonitrogenous Vegan Meal in Healthy, Older Adults.  Journal of Nutrition.  2023. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.11.004.

Purpose: Plant-derived proteins are considered to have fewer anabolic properties when compared with animal-derived proteins…So far, no study has compared the anabolic response following ingestion of an omnivorous compared with a vegan meal.

Methods: In a randomized, counter-balanced, cross-over design, 16 older (65–85 y) adults (8 males, 8 females) underwent 2 test days. On one day, participants consumed a whole-food omnivorous meal containing beef as the primary source of protein (0.45 g protein/kg body mass; MEAT). On the other day, participants consumed an isonitrogenous and isocaloric whole-food vegan meal (PLANT).

Results: MEAT increased plasma essential amino acid concentrations more than PLANT over the 6-h postprandial period (incremental area under curve 87 ± 37 compared with 38 ± 54 mmol·6 h/L, respectively; P-interaction < 0.01). Ingestion of MEAT resulted in ∼47% higher postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates when compared with the ingestion of PLANT (0.052 ± 0.023 and 0.035 ± 0.021 %/h, respectively; paired-samples t test: P = 0.037).

Conclusions:  Ingestion of a whole-food omnivorous meal containing beef results in greater postprandial muscle protein synthesis rates when compared with the ingestion of an isonitrogenous whole-food vegan meal in healthy, older adults.

And now to answer my question:

• Conflict of interest:  [two of the authors] received research grants, consulting fees, speaking honoraria, or a combination of these for research on the impact of exercise and nutrition on muscle metabolism. A full overview on research funding is provided at: https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/l.vanloon. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
• Funding:  This study was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff, Denver, USA, and Vion Food Group, Boxtel, The Netherlands….The funders had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Comment:  The Beef Checkoff is the USDA-sponsored research-and-marketing program which taxes beef producers and uses the funds to promote beef sales.  Maybe the funder had no role as stated, but the checkoff is unlikely to fund research that is not in its best interest.

The meat industry wants everyone to believe that meat is superior to plants, as food, and eating vegan diets is hazardous to health.  Hence, this research.

Something is seriously wrong when it is this easy to guess who paid for a study from its title alone.

II.  BEEF AND  MENTAL HEALTH

Just when I was ready to post that item, I ran across another one.

The study: Meat consumption & positive mental health: A scoping review. Preventive Medicine Reports. Volume 37, January 2024, 102556.

Highlight: “The majority of studies showed no differences between meat consumers and meat abstainers in positive psychological functioning.”

Results: “Eight of the 13 studies demonstrated no differences between the groups on positive psychological functioning, three studies showed mixed results, and two studies showed that compared to meat abstainers, meat consumers had greater self-esteem, ‘positive mental health’, and ‘meaning in life.'”

Conclusion [a positive spin]: “Although a small minority of studies showed that meat consumers had more positive psychological functioning, no studies suggested that meat abstainers did.”

Funding source: This study was in part funded via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

Declaration of competing interest: [The first author] previously received funding from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Comment: This review caught my attention because it found a null result: beef eating has no effect on mental health.  This is unusual for industry-funded studies.  But the article contains a positive spin:  some studies do in fact find benefits of beef eating whereas none find this result from not eating beeef.  Make of this what you will.  I think the Highlight says all you need to know.  Industry funding muddies interpretation of research results.  It’s best to avoid taking it.

I am endlessly fascinated by the plant-based industry producing products to substitute for animal foods.  Here are a few samples of what’s happening in this area.

Domestic

• Dairy and plant-based organizations go head-to-head over FDA’s plant-based milk labeling guidance:  More than 900 comments have been submitted to the FDA over its proposed labeling guidance for plant-based milk alternatives. From Danone North America to the Plant Based Foods Association, we round up some of the key arguments from both sides…. Read more
• ‘It is crucial for consumer acceptance’: Replacing animal fats in plant-based food:  While with any food, ‘taste is king,’ texture is also extremely important, especially in products aiming to mimic meat. For optimal texture, many manufacturers argue, animal fats, which contribute significantly to the texture of real meat, must be replicated for plant-based meat…. Read more
• Plant-based products and health: Study reveals nutritional shortfalls, but saturated fat benefits:  The nutritional value of plant-based meats is limited by lack of key micronutrients, although they contain significantly less saturated fat, indicates an assessment of products on the Hong Kong market…. Read more
• Start-up’s chickpea-based protein isolate boosts protein content in dairy-free cheese:  Israel-headquartered plant-based ingredients start-up ChickP has developed a chickpea-based protein isolate that can be incorporated into a range of cheese substitutes…. Read more
• Beyond Meat slashes workforce as business model is under fire:  The plant-based giant continues to face headwinds as consumers prioritize affordability.

International

• Denmark unveils the ‘world’s first’ action plan for plant-based foods: Eighteen months after the Agreement on the green transformation of Danish agriculture was approved by the Danish Parliament, Food Minister Jacob Jensen has launched the government’s new action plan for plant-based foods…. Read more  
• Green Queen: South Korea Unveils National Plan to Promote Plant-Based Food Industry:  South Korea becomes the second nation to announce a national plan dedicated to boosting local plant-based food production and consumption. Read More
• Start-up’s chickpea-based protein isolate boosts protein content in dairy-free cheese: Israel-headquartered plant-based ingredients start-up ChickP has developed a chickpea-based protein isolate that can be incorporated into a range of cheese substitutes…. Read more
• Clean and clear: China’s Haofood optimistic about plant-based growth despite dwindling hype:  China-based clean label brand Haofood is putting extra efforts into innovation while maintaining focus on taste and affordability to boost consumer adoption of plant-based diets. Read more

I think it’s time to start a new “of the week” series of posts—this one on egregiously marketed food products.

Thanks to Jerry Mande, who sent me this email:

Are you writing about Veggie Cheerios? An especially egregious case of misleading marketing. This could be Rob Califf’s Citrus Hill Fresh Choice moment. Particularly troubling is that original Cheerios, a go to finger food for moms of infants and toddlers, is lower sugar and higher in fiber than Veggie Cheerios  –  which only have 2g sugar plus 4g fiber. These new Cheerios have 8g sugars – from corn syrup – and only 2g fiber. Certainly, adding ¼ c. fruit & veggies shouldn’t cause the fiber to go down!

I hadn’t run across this version during my What to Eat revision visits to supermarkets, although I was aware that Cheerios, that old reliable cereal for kids, now came in more than 20 options—line extensions to take up more supermarket shelf space; the more shelf space, the more get sold.

I went right to the link:

Sure enough.  1/4 cup fruit & veggies.   And you get blueberry, banana, spinach, carrot, and sweet potato.  Impressive!

Here’s what Walmart says about it:

Available exclusively at Walmart [no wonder I hadn’t seen it], a wholesome bowl of Blueberry Banana flavored Cheerios Blends Cereal contains 1/4 cup of fruit and veggies in every serving.*

Uh oh; a footnote.  I went right to it:

* Cheerios Blends Cereal is made with fruit puree and vegetable powder. See complete list of ingredients. It is not intended to replace fruit or vegetables in the diet.

Oh.

As for the ingredient list:

Whole Grain Oats, Corn Meal, Sugar, Sweet Potato Powder, Corn Starch, Carrot Powder, Canola and/or Sunflower Oil, Banana Puree, Blueberry Puree Concentrate, Corn Syrup, Salt, Spinach Powder, Vegetable and Fruit Juice Color, Tripotassium Phosphate, Natural Flavor. Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness. [the rest are added vitamins and minerals].

You want fruits and vegetables?  Eat fruits and vegetables.

You want Cheerios?  I vote for the boring original.

I think I will go to Walmart and buy a box.  I want this one for my cereal box collection.  I don’t think it will be on the market long.

Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom Report, to which I subscribe, often has information I would not otherwise see.  Here’s one example.

He reported that USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service finally released its analysis of dairy checkoff programs, supposedly due annually by law.  No reports were published from 2020 through 2022.

Some members of Congress complained in a letter to Secretary Vilsack.  That worked.

See: Report to Congress on the Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, 2020 Activities.

It makes interesting reading (to me, at least).

Checkoff—officially, research and promotion—programs tax commodity producers and use the funds for marketing purposes.  The programs are mandated and managed by USDA, but paid for by commodity producers (conflict of interest, anyone?).

Two Dairy Checkoffs exist.

346. The Dairy Research and Promotion Program (the Dairy Checkoff), funded by dairy producers and dairy importers to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for fluid milk and dairy products. The program collected $346.8 million in assessments in 2020.
347. The Fluid Milk Processor Promotion program, also known as the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), is funded by fluid milk processors and “is designed to educate Americans about the benefits of fluid milk, increase milk consumption, and maintain and expand markets and uses for fluid milk products in the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia.” This program collected $85.7 million in assessments in 2020.

What is this about?  At one glance:

On the other hand, dairy consumption as a whole—mainly because of cheese and butter—is going up.

The report says that for every dollar spent on generic marketing, the industry gets roughly $3 in return.

Checkoff programs raise lots of questions about whether the USDA should be sponsoring these kinds of marketing efforts for a small number of foods, and why the government should particularly promote consumption of dairy foods (or beef, for that matter), given concerns about their environmental impact, if nothing else.

The Agricultural Marketing Service is quite clear about its objectives: to promote consumption of U.S. agricultural products, no matter what they are.

The dairy industry must want these efforts to continue; it sees the decline in fluid milk consumption as a problem.

Given concerns about the waning health of Americans, the role of dairy checkoffs—and the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service—could use reconsideration.

A reader, Kris, sent me this query:

I hope in a future writing you can help sort out the mixed statements I’m reading  about how pasture-raised meat lines up in terms of environmental/climate change concerns, (particularly if it doesn’t involve extensive shipping). I’ve seen statements and studies on both sides of the argument and I’m having a hard time determining what is supported science vs wishful thinking or greenwashing marketing hype. (Links to 2 difference examples below).

I looked at her sources.

eFeedLink.com: Grass-finished beef operations found to have higher carbon footprint, study reveals. 

In a recent study published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the Breakthrough Institute in the United States, led by Daniel Blaustein-Rejto, present findings challenging the common belief that beef operations with lifelong grass-based diets have a lower carbon footprint than those incorporating grain-based diets, Phys.org reported.  Cattle raised on lifelong grass diets, termed “pasture finished,” have been traditionally thought to be more environmentally friendly. But the study delves into a more comprehensive analysis, considering factors beyond direct greenhouse gas emissions.

This took me to the PLoS ONE article:  Carbon opportunity cost increases carbon footprint advantage of grain-finished beef.

We assess the carbon footprint of 100 beef production systems in 16 countries, including production emissions, soil carbon sequestration from grazing, and carbon opportunity cost—the potential carbon sequestration that could occur on land if it were not used for production. We conduct a pairwise comparison of pasture-finished operations in which cattle almost exclusively consume grasses and forage, and grain-finished operations in which cattle are first grazed and then fed a grain-based diet. We find that pasture-finished operations have 20% higher production emissions and 42% higher carbon footprint than grain-finished systems.

Agricltural Systems: Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems.

We used on-farm data collected from the Michigan State University Lake City AgBioResearch Center for AMP [adaptive multi-paddock] grazing. Impact scope included GHG emissions from enteric methane, feed production and mineral supplement manufacture, manure, and on-farm energy use and transportation, as well as the potential C sink arising from SOC [soil organic carbon] sequestration…This research suggests that AMP grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through SOC sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot-intensification reduces the overall beef GHG footprint through greater productivity.

Comment

I can understand Kris’s confusion.  The arguments about the environmental impact of grazing methods depend on assumptions about what needs to be measured.   There should be no argument, however, that pasture-raised animals are treated better and have better lives.  They enrich soil rather than polluting it, air, and water, as do animals raised in CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations).  When raised in a regenerative system, pastured animals replenish soil, cause carbon to be sequestered, and do other good things.  The downside?  Lower yields (but we overproduce meat anyway).  So, I’m all for pasture grazing.

The climate-change arguments depend on decisions about what gets counted; these vary depending on who is doing the counting.

Until everyone can agree on what has to be measured and included in climate-change assessments—and I see no sign of a movement to forge such an agreement—I’m voting for pasture-raised,.  Animal welfare and soil health are reasons enough.

Thanks Kris, for raising the issue so thoughtfully.

Here’s where I first saw this one: Antioxidant supplement improves sperm quality and pregnancy outcomes, research suggests: Supplementing men with a combination of micronutrients and L-Carnitine shows promise in improving sperm motility and pregnancy outcomes, a new study concludes…. Read more

I could not wait to fsee the research.

The study:  Effect of Micronutrients and L-Carnitine as Antioxidant on Sperm Parameters, Genome Integrity, and ICSI Outcomes: Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Antioxidants 2023, 12(11), 1937; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12111937

Rationale: Oxidative stress has been identified as a crucial factor leading to genome decay, lipid peroxidation, and nucleoprotein oxidation.

Method: double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial aimed to assess the effect of oral antioxidant treatment (Fertilis), which contains L-carnitine and some micronutrients, in the improvement of conventional sperm parameters, sperm DNA integrity and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes.

Results: The study outcome revealed a significant decrease in the DNA fragmentation index and a significant increase in sperm motility after 3 months of treatment (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). Additionally, a significant improvement in clinical pregnancy rate (p = 0.01) and life birth rate (p = 0.031) was observed. No significant changes were observed in conventional sperm parameters (volume, count, and vitality) or sperm DNA decondensation (SDI).

Conclusion: Antioxidant therapy has a beneficial impact on achieving pregnancy, whether through spontaneous conception or assisted reproductive procedures (ART).

Funding: This research received received funding from the MEDIS laboratories.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank MEDIS laboratories, especially Mohamed Bouchoucha “the general director”, Sonia Hafaiedh “the Medical laboratory director”, Sami Bousetta “the clinical research associate”, and Anis Ghribi “the data manager” for the encouragement and support….

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment: The funder, Medis, is the maker of “High quality generic pharmaceuticals” like this supplement, no doubt.  Even though the supplement had no effect on the usual measures of sperm number and viability, women who took the suipplessment did better in achieving pregnancy.  I’d say more research needed on this one.  In the meantime, if you believe this result and want to up your sperm quality, eat your veggies!  Practically any fruit or vegetable is rich in antioxidants. Eat the ones you like.

As for “no conflicts of interest.” I respectfully disagree.  Funding from a company that stands to gain from a positive result clearly introduces conflicted interests.

I’m just getting around to reading this report from three groups in the UK: Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) and the Alcohol Health Alliance (AHA): Holding us back: tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food and drink.

I learned about it from an article in The Guardian:

The report gives the health statistics: 13% of adults in England smoke, 21% drink above the recommended drinking guidelines, and 64% are overweight or living with obesity,.

NOTE: this report—unlike so many others—examines the political and economic causes of poor health.  It says practically nothing about personal choice or responsibility.  Instead, it focuses on industry profits and the costs of industry profiteering to society.

Big businesses are currently profiting from ill-health caused by smoking, drinking alcohol and eating unhealthy foods, while the public pay the price in poor health, higher taxes and an under-performing economy.

The wage penalty, unemployment and economic inactivity caused by tobacco, alcohol and obesity costs the UK economy an eye-watering £31bn and has led to an estimated 459,000 people out of work.

Meanwhile each year, the industries which sell these products make an estimated £53bn of combined industry revenue from sales at levels harmful to health.

The press release emphasizes the need to curb industry practices: More needs to be done to tackle the unhealthy products driving nearly half a million people out of work.

It recommends, among other things:

• The Government should take a coherent policy approach to tobacco, alcohol and high fat, salt and/or sugar foods, with a focus on primary prevention.
• Public health policymaking must be protected from the vested interest of health-harming industry stakeholders.

To do this, it suggests these actions to decrease sales of harmful products (my summary):

• Restrict advertising
• Set age limits  for purchase.
• Do not allow prominent placement in shops.
• Raise prices; tax.
• Educate the public about risks (the one place where personal responsibility is considered).

I’ve been appalled by the vast percentage of domestic corn production used to produce ethanol—nearly half.

But I had no idea food crops were also being grown to make diesel fuels—until I saw this tweet/post:

I went right to the source: Renewable Diesel Feedstock Trends over 2011-2022

The growth in renewable diesel production capacity in the U.S. was dramatic in recent years, with capacity in the last two years expanding by 1.8 billion gallons, or 225 percent (farmdoc daily, March 8, 2023). ..In a previous farmdoc daily article (May 1, 2023), we examined historical feedstock usage trends for the combined total of renewable diesel and biodiesel over 2011 through 2022.  Our most recent farmdoc daily article (December 11, 2023) article examined feedstock usage trends for biodiesel alone, and found that  soybean oil dominated as a feedstock for FAME [Fatty Acid Methyl Ester] production…(see the complete list of articles here).

Here’s what’s being used for biodiesel production.

I’m OK with animal fats for this purpose.  We aren’t raising animals specifically to produce biofuels.

But: Corn?  Soy?  Canola?

And don’t get me started on the implications of expanding palm oil production for this purpose, or what soybean production is doing to the Brazilian jungles.

This may be great news for Big Ag producers of these commodities, but could we please closely examine the implications of growing food for biofuels on food security, environmental degradation, water use, and climate change.

Note: The New York Times says our diets are to blame for ground water depletion--all those soybeans.  Another reason to question using soybeans to make fuel.  Biodiesel may be more energy efficient than ethanol, but growing crops for either depletes groundwater.