I like following what’s happening with insect foods, and much is.  Here are some recent examples from the press but also from academic journals.

• Tyson makes first move in insect protein sector:  Tyson Foods is working with insect-based protein producer Protix to build a Protix plant in the US to supply Tyson with insect larvae for use in feedstock and pet food for the first time while taking a minority stake in the Dutch company to support its global growth.  See stories in Bloomberg.  FoodNavigator.   Food Business News.
• Tyson’s insect bet will spur further adoption in the space, IFT says: Protein producers adopting bugs for use in animal feed provides a lower barrier for entry, potentially making it easier to introduce insects into consumer diets, experts say.
• Insect protein: From ridicule to laboratory-validated reality: In this month’s Food Forensics column, Alison Johnson discusses the food safety issues you will need to consider when dealing with insect protein. Read more
• Termites as Human Foods—A Comprehensive Review: This paper aims to share recent findings by covering edible termites as themain aspect, from their consumption record until consumer acceptance. Read More
• Consumption of edible insects and insect‐based foods: Low consumer acceptance of edible insects and insect-based products is one of the main barriers to the successful implementation of entomophagy in Western countries.Read More.
• Novel insect-based child nutrition: the position of the nutritional committee of the Italian society of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition (SIGENP). Based on the current knowledge, despite a possible ecological advantage, the group of expert suggests additional researches before pronouncing on a possible use for children diet, because of insufficient evidence on nutritional benefits and possible food allergies.

A group with which I was unfamiliar, PropellerFish, sent me a report of a survey it conducted: Partisan Wellbeing in America.

Earlier this year, we sponsored a study to take a more robust look at how partisanship may be shaping people’s decisions around health, nutrition and wellbeing.
We conducted a quantitative survey with 1,400 Americans across the country and further engaged 450 of those respondents in qualitative writing assignments.
We then ran in-home ethnographies with eight participants who epitomized the perspectives we encountered to put that learning into context.

They were particularly interested in the views of people in conservative small towns.  For example:

Overall, foods were perceived as liberal when they:

• Symbolized privilege
• Signaled entitlement
• Were associated with liberal causes (e.g., climate change)
• Were associated with a liberal place (e.g., California)
• Is viewed as technologically advanceed

America;s divisions, they conclude, are rooted in distinct world views.

Small town conservatives are concerned that eating healthfully will alienate their peers.

How to fix this?

• Make healthier choices more accessible.
• Associate healthier choices with hard work.
• Connect healthier choices to rural social issues.

I like qualitative research.  It gets at voices and let’s them be heard.

What PropellerFish found here is not particularly surprising, but it’s the first time I’ve seen such views presented so clearly.

Worth a look?  I think yes.

I subscribe to Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom Report because he gets to go to things in Washington, D.C. and elsewere that I can’t get to but wish I could.

He reported last week (December 7) on the Food As Medicine Summit, and wrote about it in the National Journal — “Food as medicine’ on the table”.  This notes, among other things, that the minimum fee for attending was $399.

So what is the food-as-medicine movement? Advocates believe changing Americans’ diets away from the fat, sodium, and added sugars that have led to high levels of obesity and instead toward fruits, vegetables, fiber, and lean protein can reduce the need for prescription drugs and hospitalizations. The advocates want Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers to pay for diet interventions like produce prescriptions.

He also reported on the accompanying Trade Show.

Food as Medicine is still an emerging concept, but there was a small trade show on the sidelines of the Food as Medicine Policy Summit that showed the range of companies that believe the food and health care industries need their products.

I was particularly interested in the trade show because the monetization of Food Is Medicine is a big concern.

Also last week, JAMA published a critique of the concept: “A “Food Is Medicine” Approach to Disease PreventionLimitations and Alternatives,” arguing that “the medical and public health communities’ enthusiasm for food is medicine seems unjustified by its likely benefit.”

The authors argue (my paraphrasing):

• Evidence in support of FIM’s ability to improve health is weak.
• Existing studies do not differential FIM from the effects of standard care.
• FIM requires enrollment in the health care system (overburdened, dysfunctional, difficult to access).
• Patient adherence to interventions is low (unless they are provided intact and paid for).
• Existing federal food and nutrition programs are already known to work; they deserve more support.
• The main beneficiary is the food industry, which gets to shift responsibility to the health care system.
• Food companies will also benefit from sales of FIM products [hence the Summit Trade Show].

Count me as an FIM skeptic.  It’s nice for people who can get it; it is not likely to scale up enough to address chronic disease in any significant way.

Hagstrom lists these resources:▪
▪ USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture — Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program
▪ Grey Green Media — Events
▪ Food is Medicine Coalition

DRUGS

Here’s the headline: Maker of Wegovy, Ozempic showers money on U.S. obesity doctors

Drugmaker Novo Nordisk paid U.S. medical professionals at least $25.8 million over a decade in fees and expenses related to its weight-loss drugs, a Reuters analysis found. It concentrated that money on an elite group of obesity specialists who advocate giving its powerful and expensive drugs to tens of millions of Americans.

What’s extraordinary about this situation is the amounts.  Some doctors got millions.

This account follows one about similar efforts in the UK: Revealed: experts who praised new ‘skinny jab’ received payments from drug maker.

The drug giant behind weight loss injections newly approved for NHS use spent millions in just three years on an “orchestrated PR campaign” to boost its UK influence.  As part of its strategy, Novo Nordisk paid £21.7m to health organisations and professionals who in some cases went on to praise the treatment without always making clear their links to the firm, an Observer investigation has found.

Novo Nordisk knew what it was doing, and its efforts (presumably legal) are certainly paying off.

ALCOHOL

The headline: Scientists in Discredited Alcohol Study Will Not Advise U.S. on Drinking Guidelines: Two researchers with ties to beer and liquor companies had been named to a panel that will review the health evidence on alcohol consumption. But after a New York Times story was published, the panel’s organizers decided to drop them.

Five years ago, the National Institutes of Health abruptly pulled the plug on an ambitious study about the health effects of moderate drinking. The reason: The trial’s principal scientist and officials from the federal agency’s own alcohol division had solicited $60 million for the research from alcohol manufacturers, a conflict of interest and a violation of federal policy.

I wrote about that in a previous post.

I’m told by people in the know that I should not be too hard on the scientists.  NIH told them it would not fund the study and they should get the funding from industry.  If true, that is unfortunate.

For sure, NIH is not interested in nutrition research except for genetically based “Precision” nutrition aimed at individuals.  That leaves population studies out of the picture.  Unfortunate, indeed.

CLINICAL TRIALS

The study: Industry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022

Among 600 clinical trials with a median sample size of 415  participants:

• 409 (68.2%) had industry funding
• 303 (50.5%) were exclusively industry-funded
• 354 (59.0%) had industry authors
• 280 (46.6%) involved industry analysts
• 125 (20.8%) were analyzed exclusively by industry analysts.

Among industry-funded trials:

• 364 (89.0%) reached conclusions favoring the sponsor.

Industry involvement in research in general and in nutrition research in particular deserves close scrutiny and much skepticism.

Drug companies are required to do research and to find their own funding.  That is not true of nutrition.

Everyone should be lobbying for more independent funding for nutrition research.

Dwight Garner.  The Upstairs Delicatessen: On Eating, Reading, Reading about Eating, & Eating While Reading.  Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2023. 244 pages.

This book was given to me by my editor at Farrar Straus & Giroux (which is publishing the new edition of What to Eat in 2025).

And what a fun read it is.

For one thing, the title describes exactly how this book is constructed.

Garner (who I don’t know but wish I did) reviews books for the New York Times (his most recent is a review of Fuchcia Dunlop’s history of Chinese food).

He, as it turns out, is one serious foodie.

In this memoir of sorts, he notes what everyone he reads—and he reads everything—has to say about food.  The name-dropping result takes getting used to.  Here is an example from the chapter on shopping for food.

I push past the onions and put two leeks into my cart.  I like to slice off the tops, when cooking with them, and set them on the windowsill, where the crazy tendrils wave like Struwwelpeter’s hair in the children’s book by Heinrich Hoffmann…I take some arugula.  In Jonathan Franzen’s novel The Corrections, a failed academic named Chip eats arugula that’s “so strong it made his eyes water, like a paragraph of Thoreau.”  Arugula wasn’t well-known in America before the eighties.  When farmers began to grow it in California, they didn’t know how much to charge.  Cree’s [Garner’s wife’s] father, Bruce explained that in Europe the cost was roughtly equal to a pack of cigarettes.  According to Joyce Goldstein, in her book Insie the California Food Revolution, farmers listened to him and initially pegged arugula prices to the cost of Bruce’s Lucky Strikes.

This is all a great introduction to who is writing what about food, and wonderfully gossipy about people I’ve read too (and occasionally have met).

But wait.  How come he’s not quoting me?

I went right to the Index’s pages and pages of names.

Bingo!  There I am on page 93.

By now we’ve all read our Eric Schlosser, our Alice Waters, our Marion Nestle, our Michael Pollan.  These are first-rate writers and thinkers, and God bless them, but they can’t help, at times, sounding sanctimonious.

I am deeply honored by—and adore —being grouped with Schlosser, Waters, and Pollan.

But, ouch.  Sanctimonious?  Moi?

Oh well.  I enjoyed reading the book.  A lot.

On Thursdays I like posting things I want everyone to enjoy.

This one, I stole from Tamar Haspel, who writes about food for the Washington Post.

I follow her on X (the site formerly known as Twitter), where she recently posted:

This could be my all-time favorite BMI correlation!

In China and post-Soviet states, BMI correlates with corruption. The fatter, the crookeder.

The correlation she cites is from an article in the Economist, Are Overweight Politicians Less Trustworthy?

I agree.  This is a fabulous example of how correlation does NOT mean causation—a basic tenet of epidemiology often forgotten.

But here’s my personal favorite example.  I laugh every time I see it.

No, the Dietary Guidelines did not cause the prevalence of obesity to rise.

This is correlation, NOT causation.

For causes, please consider food overproduction, pressures on food companies to sell food when there is so much of it, and the shareholder value movement, which demands not only profits, but  continual growth in profits.  All of these forced food companies to find new ways to get everyone to eat more food (by creating an “eat more” food environment.  I discuss all this in Food Politics and my other books).

Correlation is lots of fun but causation requires much deeper analyses.

Sorry about that.

Thanks Tamar.

I’m having a hard time with this one.

Once again, the FDA is warning all of us : “Do not eat, sell, or serve recalled cantaloupes or recalled products containing pre-cut cantaloupe.”

The warning lists the products implicated and all the ones that have been recalled.

The CDC says much the same:

CDC is concerned about this outbreak because the illnesses are severe and people in long-term care facilities and childcare centers have gotten sick. Do not eat pre-cut cantaloupes if you don’t know whether Malichita or Rudy brand cantaloupes were used.

As of November 30, the toll is:

Total Illnesses: 117
Hospitalizations: 61
Deaths: 2

But that’s only in the U.S.  Canada reports illnesses too: 63 sick, 17 hospitalized and 1 death.

This, mind you, is from eating cantaloupe.

It’s not that nobody knew cantaloupe poses special safety problems.  It’s grown on the ground and is hard to wash.  If it is grown anywhere near animal wastes, it has a high risk of getting Salmonella on its rind.  Cutting through the rind can move harmful bacteria on the rind into the interior.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler, who tracks such things, reminds us of previous lawsuits over cantaloupe food poisonings.

He also has some useful things to say about Salmonella during a Cantaloupe Outbreak – Symptoms and Treatment

Cantaloupes, he points out, might still be in season, but Salmonella should not be.

He quotes Perdue (sic Purdue) Extension on how to make cantaloupe safer: scrub and wash in very hot water.

But Marler has been quoted as saying he does not eat cut fruit (implying you should not either).

What’s infuriating about all this is that Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act to give the FDA the power to require safety plans from producers of every food under its jurisdiction.  This means cantaloupe growers are supposed to take steps—and test—to make sure the fruit is not contaminated with pathogenic bacteria.

Clearly, the system isn’t working.

The FDA needs to find out why not.

The FDA is chronically and infamously underfunded for what it is supposed to do.

Congress needs to pay attention to this issue.

Nobody should get this sick from eating cut fruit.

And if you haven’t seen the film featuring Marler (I’m in it too, briefly), take a look at Poisoned on Netflix.  It talks about cantaloupe, among other things worth knowing.

COP-28, the UN’s climate change conference is happening in Dubai, right now.

I’m trying to make sense of it.  For starters, the irony:

• A climate-change conference in an oil-rich state
• The head of the conference publicly states “there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels.”
• Lots of people fly there in carbon-emitting private jets

But food—the effects of agriculture on climate change (and vice versa) is on its agenda this year—a major big deal.

That’s why a coalition of farmers, communities, business, and philanthropy has issued a call to transform food systems.

Here’s my collection of food-related items.

I.  Food Tank’s Danielle Nierenberg is on the job: more than 30 Food Tank partnered events are scheduled.

Once again, four pavilions will be devoted to food systems: Food and Agriculture, led by our partners and friends at FAO, CGIAR, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and The Rockefeller Foundation; Food Systems, spearheaded by the European Union-backed program EIT Food and a variety of other groups including the Food and Land Use Coalition; Food4Climate, organized by a variety of partners—including youth voices—pushing for a more humane and sustainable food system; and the Sustainable Agriculture of the Americas Pavilion facilitated by IICA, bringing together the global north and south across the hemisphere.  You can read Food Tank’s coverage of the roadmap, which was announced last year, here.

II.  FoodDive: Food system transformation on the menu at COP28

III.  Reuters: Countries urged to curb factory farming to meet climate goals

IV.  The lunch menu: The summit is featuries roughly two-thirds plant-based menu to highlight the link between greenhouse gas emissions and livestock.  But the meat industry is fighting  back.

V.  DeSmog: Big Meat Unveils Battle Plans for COP28

VI.  The Guardian: Plans to present meat as ‘sustainable nutrition’ at Cop28 revealed: Documents show industry intends to go ‘full force’ in arguing meat is beneficial to the environment at climate summit.

VII.  The Meat Institute

The Meat Institute and the Protein PACT for the People, Animals & Climate of Tomorrow will highlight animal agriculture’s commitments and progress toward global goals in multiple high-level engagements at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai November 30-December 12. The Protein PACT has organized or assisted with inviting expert speakers for six panels across five COP28 pavilions, including:

• December 5 panel in the Food Pavilion, co-organized by IICA and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) on the topic of sustainable and healthy livestock production systems
• December 6 panel in the IICA pavilion, organized by the ​​Canadian Alliance for Net-Zero Agri-food on the topic of achieving net zero in agrifood systems
• December 8 panel in the IICA pavilion, organized by the Protein PACT on the topic of principles, practices, and proof for animal agriculture driving climate and food security solutions
• December 9 panel in the IICA pavilion, co-organized by IICA and ILRI on the topic of innovation and investment in livestock systems for climate change adaptation and  mitigation

VIII.  International Dairy Federation & European Dairy Association side event: How Animal Source Food Nourishes The World In Times of Climate Change.

IX. Vox: There’s less meat at this year’s climate talks. But there’s plenty of bull.  Meat and dairy are driving the climate crisis. Why won’t world leaders at COP28 do anything about it?

X.  Food Navigator: on The Emirates Declaration.  Food is finally at the top table but measurable targets are missing.  Over 130 prime ministers and presidents have today signed the Emirates Declaration at COP28 – a first of its kind commitment to adapt and ‘transform’ food systems as part of action on the climate crisis…. Read more

Comment: The Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action is the firsr statement out of this meeting.  It doesn’t mention fossil fuels (the elephant in this particular room) or meat.  But it does propose:

1. Financial and technical support for sustainable solutions, capacity building, infrastructure, and innovations for farmers, fisherfolk, and other food producers.while conserving, protecting and restoring nature.

2. Promoting food security and nutrition.

3. Supporting workers in agriculture and food systems whose livelihoods are threatened by climate change.

4. Strengthening water management .

5. Conserving, protecting and restoring land and natural ecosystems, enhancing soil health, and biodiversity, and shifting from higher greenhouse
gas-emitting practices to more sustainable production and consumption approaches, including by reducing food loss and waste and promoting sustainable aquatic blue foods.

As for how and when?

To achieve these aims – according to our own national circumstances – we commit to expedite the integration of agriculture and food systems into our climate action and, simultaneously, to mainstream climate action across our policy agendas and actions related to agriculture and food
systems.

In the meantime, consider these:

• New York Times: Airlines Race Toward a Future of Powering Their Jets With Corn: Carriers want to replace jet fuel with ethanol to fight global warming. That would require lots of corn, and lots of water.
• FERN’s Ag Insider: Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture grew 14 percent in 20 years.

What will it take to stop the impending disaster?  This has to be #1 on the advocacy agenda.