Search results: a life in food

I haven’t posted anything about pistachio industry conflicts of interest since 2019 so it’s time for another one.

Here’s a press release sent to me by a reader, Matthew Kadey:

NEW STUDY REVEALS PISTACHIOS ARE AN ANTIOXIDANT POWERHOUSE…Antioxidant-rich foods are regularly encouraged as part of a healthy lifestyle, and research suggests that a diet high in antioxidants may even help to reduce the risk of death.¹ While certain fruits and vegetables are often thought of as high-antioxidant foods, a new study conducted by Cornell University and published in the journal, Nutrients, produced surprising results². Pistachios have a very high antioxidant capacity, among the highest when compared to values reported in research of many foods commonly known for their antioxidant capacity, such as blueberries, pomegranates, cherries, and beets.^3,4,5  (I’ve posted the references at the end).

My first question, as always when I see a press release like this: Who paid for it?

The study: uan, Wang, Bisheng Zheng, Tong Li, and Rui Hai Liu. 2022. Quantification of Phytochemicals, Cellular Antioxidant Activities and Antiproliferative Activities of Raw and Roasted American Pistachios (Pistacia vera L). Nutrients 14, no. 15: 3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153002

Conclusion:  It is shown that the roasting of pistachios could produce a series of beneficial phytochemical changes, leading to enhanced biological activity. Pistachios are a nutrient-dense food containing a unique profile of good-quality protein, fats, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants, such as carotenoids and polyphenols, with cellular antioxidant activity. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025 suggested including nuts as a health dietary pattern. Further research on antiproliferative activity and mechanisms of action of free-form extracts of roasted pistachios, and more biological activities related cellular antioxidant activity and oxidative stress, are worthy of further investigation.

 

Funding: This study was partially supported by Innovative Leading Talents Project of Guangzhou Development Zone and 111 Project: B17018, Cornell China Center, and American Pistachio Growers: 2021-09.

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

Comment: Roasted pistachios are healthy?  No surprise here.  Further research needed?  Also no surprise.  This is another example of an industry-funded study with unimpressive results but plenty of interpretation bias, along with the usual contention that industry funding does not induce conflicts of interest.  Alas, it does.

References to the press release paragraph

¹ Jayedi A, Rashidy-Pour A, Parohan M, Zargar MS, Shab-Bidar S. Dietary Antioxidants, Circulating Antioxidant Concentrations, Total Antioxidant Capacity, and Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Observational Studies. Adv Nutr. 2018 Nov 1;9(6):701-716. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy040. PMID: 30239557; PMCID: PMC6247336.
² Yuan W, Zheng B, Li T, Liu RH. Quantification of Phytochemicals, Cellular Antioxidant Activities and Antiproliferative Activities of Raw and Roasted American Pistachios (Pistacia vera L.). Nutrients. 2022; 14(15):3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153002
³ Wolfe KL, et al. Cellular Antioxidant Activity (CAA) Assay for Assessing Antioxidants, Foods, and Dietary Supplements. J Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 8896–8907.
⁴ Song W, et al. Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Common Vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 6621–6629. DOI:10.1021/jf9035832
⁵ Wolfe, K., Kang, X., He, X., Dong, M., Zhang, Q., and Liu, R.H. Cellular antioxidant activity of common fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (18): 8418-8426, 2008.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

My book talk today:  Online with NYU’s Fales Library in conversation with Clark Wolf.  5:00-6:00 p.m.  Registration is HERE.

******

The FDA has come under heavy criticism this year for its failure to handle the infant formula crisis adequately and for its internal disorganization and lack of leadership.

To deal with this, the FDA commissioned the Reagan Udall Foundation for the FDA to do an operational evaluation of its human foods and tobacco programs.  This Foundation is “an independent 501(c)(3) organization created by Congress ‘to advance the mission of the FDA to modernize medical, veterinary, food, food ingredient, and cosmetic product development, accelerate innovation, and enhance product safety.’”

As announced on July 19, 2022, the Reagan-Udall Foundation will facilitate, via two Independent Expert Panels, operational evaluations of FDA’s human foods and tobacco programs. Each evaluation will yield a report with operational recommendations to the FDA: one for human foods and the other for tobacco. Each evaluation, and therefore report delivery, is on its own 60-business-day timeline. Both reports will be delivered to the FDA Commissioner and made available to the public.

The Foundation began its work by

• Appointing a committee to oversee the evaluation
• Opening a stakeholder portal where you can file anonymous comments
• Holding hearings: Agenda

The two-day hearings were held right after the White House Conference on Hunger.  Videos are posted on YouTube

• First day
• Second day

As far as I can tell, no reporter covered these hearings except for Helena Bottemiller Evich at Food Fix, which is what makes her newsletter an invaluable resource and essential to subscribe to (at least for me).

Her overview:

Wow, were people honest in their assessment of shortfalls at the agency.

There was a strong consensus among the nearly three-dozen experts who spoke that things are not working very well and serious changes are needed. The panel got an earful about problems with leadership structure, culture, inadequate funding and staffing, poor oversight of inspections and a lack of responsiveness to the public and Capitol Hill – as well as plenty of complaints about how painfully long it takes to get anything done.

If all of this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. I’m sure you are all tired of me referencing this, but I did an investigative piece on FDA earlier this year, based on more than 50 interviews, that found many of the same things.

Her piece goes into the details.  Subscribe and you can read them.

More complaints

• One criticism of this entire procedure is that the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) was excluded from the review.  This is a serious oversight, as noted by a letter from several groups to the FDA.
• Senator Richard Burr says in a letter to the FDA that he won’t support funding until the agency cleans up its ac

We only have one food supply: it serves people and animals inextricably (an issue discussed in my books Feed Your Pet Right and Pet Food Politics).

In the meantime I want to know:  Why aren’t more journalists covering this issue?

The FDA is responsible for regulating the safety and health of 80% of the foods we eat.  If we want foods to be safe and healthy, we need a strong, vigilant FDA willing to stand up to lobbying and industry pressure.

This needs press attention.

The Reagan Udall Foundation has to issue reports within the next couple of months.  Let’s see how well those reports reflect what was said at the hearings.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Last week, STAT News asked if I would write something about the FDA’s definition of “Healthy” for them.  I agreed because I was planning a blog post on it anyway (posted here).

I wrote a draft and had a great time working with a STAT editor, Patrick Skerritt, to fill in some missing pieces.  Here’s how it came out (with a couple of after-the-fact embellishments).

First Opinion: FDA’s plan to define ‘healthy’ for food packaging: Better than the existing labeling anarchy, but do we really need it?   STATNews, Oct. 7, 2022

The FDA has announced the set of rules it proposes to enforce for manufacturers to claim that a food product is “healthy.” The proposed rules are a lot better than the labeling anarchy that currently exists. But here’s my bottom line: health claims are not about health. They are about selling food products.

The FDA says that a “healthy” product must meet two requirements: It must contain a meaningful amount of food, and it must not contain more than certain upper limits for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.

To illustrate the “healthy” claim, the FDA is also researching a symbol that food makers can use, and might be testing examples like these.

[Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2021-N-0336-0003]

Doing all this, the FDA says, would align “healthy” with the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and with the Nutrition Facts label that is printed on food packages.

This action is the latest in the FDA’s attempts to simplify food label information so it’s easier for consumers to identify healthier food choices. It is also an attempt to head off what food companies most definitely do not want: warning labels like those used in Chile, Brazil, and several other countries. These have been shown to discourage purchases of ultra-processed “junk” foods, just as they were supposed to, a message understood even by children or adults who cannot read. No wonder food manufacturers will do anything to prevent their use.

If we must have health claims on food packages, the FDA’s proposals are pretty good. They require any product labeled “healthy” to contain some real food (as opposed to a collection of chemical ingredients or, as author Michael Pollan calls them, “food-like objects”), and for the first time they include limits on sugars.

Here’s an example given by the FDA: To qualify for the “healthy” claim, a breakfast cereal serving would need to contain at least three-quarters of an ounce of whole grains and could contain no more than one gram of saturated fat, 230 milligrams of sodium and 2.5 grams of added sugars.

These proposed rules would exclude almost all cereals marketed to children.

But do Americans really need health claims on food products? You might think that any relatively unprocessed food from a plant or animal ought to qualify as healthy without needing FDA approval, and you would be right. But health claims aren’t about health. They are meant to get people to buy food products, not real foods like fruit, vegetables, grains, nuts, meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, or fish.

Food companies love the term “healthy” because it gets people to buy food products.

 

The history of “healthy”

How did we get to where the FDA needs to require a product to contain real food to be considered “healthy”? Blame KIND bars.

In 2015, KIND (then a small private company, but now owned by Mars) advertised its bars as healthy because they contained whole foods like grains and nuts. But nuts have more fat than the FDA allowed at the time for products to be labeled as “healthy.” The FDA warned KIND that its bars violated the rules for health claims.

KIND fought back. It filed a citizens’ petition arguing that even though nuts are higher in fat than the FDA allowed, they are healthy. The FDA could hardly argue otherwise — of course nuts are healthy — and it backed off. It permitted KIND to use the term and said it would revisit its long-standing definition of “healthy.” That was good news for KIND.

At the time, the FDA’s definition of “healthy” set upper limits for fat, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol; required at least minimal amounts of one or more vitamins or minerals; and said nothing about sugars. So the new FDA proposals break new ground in simplifying the nutritional criteria and in putting a limit on sugars.

 

Front-of-package symbols

These, too, have a long history with the FDA. In the early 1990s, when the agency was writing the rules for Nutrition Facts labels on food products, it tested public understanding of several prototype designs. As it happened, nobody could understand any of the samples very well, so the FDA picked the one that was the least poorly understood. Soon afterward, food companies and health organizations developed symbols that would allow buyers to recognize at a glance which products were supposed to be good for them.

By 2010, more than 20 such symbols were on food packages. The FDA commissioned the Institute of Medicine to do studies of front-of-package labeling. The Institute’s first report on the subject examined the strengths and weaknesses of all of the symbols cluttering up the labels of processed foods, and recommended that the FDA develop a single symbol that would cover just calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Why not sugars too? The Institute said calories took care of them.

But the Institute’s second report did include sugars. It recommended a front-of-package labeling system that would give food products zero, one, two, or three stars (or check marks) depending on how little they had of the undesirable nutrients.

This idea so alarmed food manufacturers that they quickly developed the Facts Up Front labeling system in use today.

This, in my view, is so obfuscating that nobody pays any attention to it. But this scheme, coupled with industry pushback, was all it took to get the FDA to drop the entire idea of a symbol that would tell people what not to eat.

Here we are a decade later with the FDA’s current proposal. This plan is strong enough to exclude huge swaths of supermarket products from self-identifying as “healthy.” Products bearing the “healthy” symbol will have to contain real food and be low in saturated fat, salt, and sugar, as called for by federal dietary guidelines.

The new rules won’t stop “healthy” products from being loaded with additives and artificial sweeteners. And the FDA won’t require warning labels for unhealthy products, which work better than other symbols. But these proposals are a marked improvement over the current situation.

And the FDA might do more. It could look into the idea of warning labels. It already promises to make a decision about the other ambiguous marketing term, “natural.” A decision on that one can’t come soon enough.

As for “healthy,” the FDA is seeking feedback on its proposals. Instructions for filing comments, which can be made until Dec. 28, 2022, are at Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims; Definition of Term “Healthy.”

I can’t wait to see what companies wanting to sell ultra-processed food products as “healthy” will have to say about this.

Marion Nestle is professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, author of the Food Politics blog, and author of the new memoir, “Slow Cooked: An Unexpected Life in Food Politics” (University of California Press, October 2022).

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

Today is the official publication day for my memoir, Slow Cooked: An Unexpected Life in Food Politics. 

I’ve been posting the early reviews and comments on the page devoted to this book.

You can still get a 30% discount at the University of California Press site.  At checkout, use code 21W2240.

I’ll be speaking about the book online and in person.

• OCTOBER 6, Thursday.  In person with MOFAD and WNYC in conversation with Laura Shapiro.  7:00 to 8:15 p.m.  Books available for signing.   Greene Space, 44 Charlton.  Information and tickets HERE.
• OCTOBER 12, Wednesday.  Online with NYU’s Fales Library in conversation with Clark Wolf.  5:00-6:00 p.m.  Registration is HERE.
• OCTOBER 13, Thursday.  Online with Hunter’s Food Policy Center in conversation with Charles Platkin, 9:30 to 10:30 a.m.  Registration is HERE.
• OCTOBER 19, Wednesday.  In person at NYU’s Bookstore, 726 Broadway @ Waverly: Meet the Author and book signing.  6:00 p.m.  (The bookstore usually closes at 6:00 but will stay open for this event).  No registration needed; just come!

Later scheduled events are listed under Appearances.

I’m eager to hear what you think of it.   Enjoy!

Despite chaotic organization (see note below), the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health was inspiring (you can watch it on YouTube here).  It was exciting to be in the room where it happened, as you can see from my photo-taking (courtesy of tweet by Suzanna Martinez).

The conference had a laser-like focus on ending hunger and hunger inequities.  Although there was much talk of diet-related diseases, it was not at all about preventing obesity and its chronic disease consequences in the general population.  Instead, its aim was to make sure that poor people, especially those of color, have access to healthy, culturally appropriate diets at a price they can afford.

Common themes

Bipartisan: Ending hunger has to be a united effort (Republicans were barely represented, but not for lack of trying)

Diet-related disease: none of us ever expected to hear that phrase from high elected officials, let alone POTUS

Lived experience: Many of the panels included people who had grown up on foods stamps, and President Biden was introduced by Jimmieaka Mills of Houston, TX (her name was not listed in the program; I found it on Twitter) who spoke eloquently of how much food assistance meant to her life.

Food at the center: it must stop being an afterthought.

Food as Medicine: This refers to the health care system’s use of food prescriptions or distributions.  Alhough his idea is sometimes perceived as paternalistic—food should really be about pleasure and culture (see ConscienHealth)—it plays well politically.

Impressions

Almost everything related to the conference is on the website.  My reactions.

How it felt: It was a joy to see old friends and colleagues who care deeply about food and preventing hunger.  We hadn’t seen each other since before the pandemic.  Hugs all around.

The tone: This was a packed auditorium with a standing room audience, happy to be there, appreciative, and enthusiastic.

The love: Almost everyone thanked Congressman Jim McGovern who has tried to get this conference held for years.  He got—and deserved—standing ovations.

The speeches

The President: Biden mostly reiterated the main points of the National Strategy, but insisted on the value of the Child Tax Credit (see my previous post on this).  This got a standing ovation (along with a couple of others).  Ending food insecurity, he said, is a way to treat each other with decency.

Jim McGovern: When he worked with George McGovern (no relation, a Democrat) and Republican Bob Dole on food issues,  ending hunger was a bipartisan goal.  Now, 35 million Americans needi food assistance; hunger should be illegal.

Cory Booker: Americans are in the midst of a storm of diet-related disease.  Congress will hold hearings on Food as Medicine.  We need to put the F back in FDA (ovation).

The plenary panel

Debbie Stabenow, who heads the Senate Ag Committee; “We will not cut SNAP.”

Rosa de Lauro, who heads the House appropriations committee: “I like holding the gavel.  We will fund what we need to.”

Eric Adams, mayor of New York City: “We are making healthy eating the default.”

The major speech

José Andrés: This was the major political speech of the conference: the problem, the moral imperative, and the policies needed (ovation). My favorite line: “We must stop giving breadcrumbs and start building bakeries.”

My assessment

The conference put hunger on the agenda of Susan Rice, who heads Biden’s Domestic Policy Council (and who stayed throughout the entire meeting), and on that of the President himself.

• It gave high visibility to the issue.
• It highlighted the fabulous work of individuals and organizations who are working to  help bring people out of poverty.
• It called for—and got—commitments from organizations and corporations to take real action to address food insecurity and its consequences.
• It generated excitement and hope among people working on these issues.

Will it lead to real change?  Will it improve the current situation?  Will it lead to reduced hunger?

Not without public pressure, I’m guessing.

A note on the organizational chaos: last-minute invitations (mine arrived Sunday night after 9:00 p.m. and Eric Adams’ staff, who attended, never did get theirs; no advance schedule until a couple of days before, when it was still quite vague; a 6:00 a.m. announcement to be there at 7:30 to register because security lines would be long; badge printers that didn’t work; no printed program; no clear listing of speakers and times; auditorium too small for audience (most were in overflow room); a mystery as to who was in charge—a committee of the Domestic Policy Council, apparently.  Still, it all worked!

A note on the meals and swag: The James Beard Foundation arranged the lunch—vegan, bison, or chicken. These were packed in heavy plastic lunch trays, later washed and packed along with cutlery into Oxo bags given to participants.  The only real souvenir is the name badge, to be treasured.

A note on Biden’s blooper: He called out Jackie Walorsky— “Where’s Jackie?” — which got gasps from people who knew she had died in a traffic accident in August.   Later, a video tribute to her brought people to tears.

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

At 9:09 on Sunday night, I received a rather lat-minute invitation to this conference.  I think it’s worth going to, and will.

Whatever it turns out to be, this will be an historic occasion.

Almost everything public about it is on the conference website.

Here’s what it says will happen:

On Wednesday, September 28, the Biden-Harris Administration will host the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. The Administration will also release a National Strategy with actions the federal government will take to drive solutions to these challenges.

As it happens, the White House released The Biden-Harris Administration National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health yesterday.  I will say more about this tomorrow, but here’s a summary of Pillar 1:

Improving food access and affordability, including by advancing economic security; increasing access to free and nourishing school meals; providing Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) benefits to more children; and expanding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility to more underserved populations.

The opening speakers have been announced:

• President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
• Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff
• Ambassador Susan E. Rice, White House Domestic Policy Advisor
• Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
• Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra
• Chef José Andrés

It can be watched online:

• Click here to get the link to view the conference online and let the organizers know if you plan to host a Watch Party or Satellite Event.
• Check out the conference agenda.
• Find or host a satellite event.
• Share your ideas and stories

It will be interesting to see what the National Strategy might be, and what emerges from the conference.

In the meantime, to inform the conference:

• Feeding America has just published a report on the results of the pre-conference listening sessions, “Elevating Voices to End Hunger Together: Community-Driven Solutions to Address America’s Hunger Crisis.”
• The Meridian Institute, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Bread for the World, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Farm, Food, Environment Policy Consulting, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) have produced a memo: A Food Systems Approach to Nutrition.
• Bill Frist writes: It’s Time To Prioritize Nutrition: Better Diet Quality [in SNAP] Leads To Better Health And Wellbeing For Americans

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

Just got my two—count ’em—copies of the forthcoming memoir, a candid personal account of my professional life.  It comes out October 4.

The publisher, University of California Press, is offering a 30% discount.

• Go to: www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156
• Use code 21W2240 at checkout

Information about the book is here.

Forthcoming appearances are listed here.

Carole Bartoletto, who works with dining services at UCLA, sent me two items.

• A toolkit to encourage dining halls to promote choices of meals with lower carbon footprints.
• A research study: Increasing the Selection of Low-Carbon Footprint Entrées through the Addition of New Menu Items and a Social Marketing Campaign in University Dining.

I started with the research study.

Its title requires translation.  Low-carbon footprint means plant-based.  In this case, it means Impossible brand plant-based meat alternatives.

Their intervention succeeded in encouraging substitution of Impossible for beef, but had unintended consequences.

Although the intervention was followed by a decrease in sales of beef entrées and increase in sales of plant-based meat entrées, sales of other vegetarian entrées also decreased.

Students replaced vegetarian choices with Impossible burgers?

To their credit, the authors acknowledge the problem.

It is also worth discussing the nutritional differences between plant-based meat and other low-carbon footprint options. In general, lower-carbon foods (i.e., plant-based and sustainably-raised fish) tend to be healthier, but this is not always the case. Plant-based meat products such as Impossible™ are ultra-processed and relatively high in sodium and saturated fat. Consuming ultra-processed foods has been linked with higher calorie intake and weight gain (Hall et al., 2019).

The toolkit, in contrast, includes Impossible products but does not focus on them.  It presents a variety of vegetarian and vegan options as low-carbon options with many illustrations of ways to present this information.

This could be useful, and maybe more useful, without the Impossible products, especially if the ultra-processed meal alternatives discourage choices of vegetarian options.

Take a look and see what you think.

Note: an educational intervention in Great Britain that also gave participants free plant-based meats found more of them sto be consumed, unsurprisingly.

ADDITION, July 1: I received this message in response to this post from Hannah Malen, at UCLA:

Dear Marion,

As one of your fans and newsletter subscribers, I was excited to see that you covered the low-carbon footprint dining intervention we did at UCLA! I collaborated with the innovative and talented folks at UCLA Dining as part of my dissertation work. It was an awesome experience to design, implement, and study a real-world intervention.

Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed by your summary of the study. I felt your assessment overlooked some of the nuances that make this work challenging and important.

1) Low-carbon footprint does not mean only plant-based in this case. We created low-, medium-, and high-carbon footprint cutoffs based on life cycle analysis data and feasibility of real-world implementation. The criteria were created for the purposes of classifying menu items AND educating students about the relative impacts of different foods. Based on our criteria, low-carbon footprint included vegetarian menu items with < 2 ounces of cheese AND menu items with sustainable fish. I think this is worth noting because low-carbon footprint doesn’t have to mean ONLY plant-based or vegan…it also means some vegetarian items with cheese are NOT low-carbon footprint.

2) The decision to add Impossible plant-based meat alternative products to the menu was strategic and led by our Dining Director. As we know, it can be hard to appeal to meat-eaters, and Impossible-type products have been more successful than many other alternatives. While sales of the new Impossibile products did coincide with decreases in sales of other vegetarian items, I don’t think it’s accurate to say they discouraged choices of vegetarian options. We studied and saw shifts across basically all categories of menu items, which I think is a strength of the research. We also saw that overall, sales of low-carbon footprint items increased, while sales of medium- and high-carbon footprint items decreased. On average, this corresponded with an 8% decrease in the carbon footprint of entrees sold.

All this to say, it’s complicated, and I’m proud that we are among the first to look at the dynamics of introducing Impossible plant-based meat alternatives into food environments. Of course it’s ideal if eaters swap beans or veggies for meat, but the path to get there is certainly not easy.

Thanks for the opportunity to share our work and respond to your coverage. (And thanks to Carole for being a champion of the work and leader in creating the toolkit!)

Kind regards,

Hannah