Search results: a life in food

Life is always full of stresses but on top of the usual sources we now have the pandemic and what went on—and continues—about the election.

Fortunately, food remains one source of comfort we can always rely on.

The trick is making sure that stress eating doesn’t interfere with long-term health.

Here is a sample of recent reports:

• From Eater: Butter sales are up “thanks to everyone who is channeling their anxiety into baking.”
• From CNN: it was junk food and booze on election night.
• From the Wall Street Journal:  Hershey’s sales are up.  “Hershey said it also benefited from using Covid-19 case counts to predict where demand would spike as more people stayed home, and sent more chocolate bars there.”

What are we to make of these reports?

We are all looking for comfort and solace, and foods help.

But watch out for food marketers: they will do all they can to encourage you to buy what they are selling.

Evidence is pouring in that people with adequate vitamin D status seem to be better protected against harmful effects of Covid-19.

This is not surprising; people who practice healthful lifestyles—eating well, being active, getting out in the fresh air, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, not drinking too much—generally survive this infection more easily.

Vitamin D, I must remind you, is not really a vitamin.  It is a hormone induced by the effects of sunlight on skin.

Sunlight is by far the most effective way to get it.   Foods provide much less.

As for supplements, it’s hard to say.  They are under investigation.

I’ve been collecting items:

• An account of a clinical trial in Italy published in Medium: “Among the 26 hospitalized people who received standard care alone, fully half went on to the intensive care unit (ICU) because their disease had worsened. Two of them died. But among the 50 people who received the vitamin D treatment on top of standard care, only one person ended up in the ICU. None died.”  The study itself concludes: “…administration of a high dose of Calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D…significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment of patients requiring hospitalization due to proven COVID-19. Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease, but larger trials with groups properly matched will be required to show a definitive answer.”
• Medium’s discussion of what is known about Vitamin D supplements and Covid-19: “If we ask the question “Does vitamin D prevent/treat COVID-19?” the only real answer is “How could you possibly know?””
• Consumer Reports on whether you should be taking vitamin D supplements: its not-particularly-helpful conclusion: “Ultimately, whether to get tested or take a supplement and how to do it comes down to having a discussion with your doctor.”

As always with supplements, a market is involved.  This one is not trivial, even in the UK.

• Vitamin market set to hit £500m but where are the new users?  Use of Vitamin D supplements is growing fast thanks largely to growing media attention during the pandemic but interest in nearly all other single vitamins has dropped, and there’s still a lack of new consumers entering the market, according to new data from Mintel…. Read more

An obesity newsletter I subscribe to—Obesity and Energetics Offerings—provides items suggesting that conflicts of interest may be involved.

• Vitamin D deficiency linked to 54% higher SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate: Study: “The associations between vitamin D status and COVID-19 risk continue to strengthen, with new data from Quest Diagnostics and Boston University indicating that people with deficiency in the sunshine vitamin may have a significantly higher positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.“
• The study in question, Evidence That Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths, reports conflicted interests: “W.B.G receives funding from Bio-Tech Pharmacal, Inc. (Fayetteville, AR). H.L. sells vitamin D supplements. GrassrootsHealth works with various supplement suppliers to test the efficacy of their products in various custom projects. These suppliers may be listed as sponsors of GrassrootsHealth.”   Basically, it’s industry-funded.
• One letter in response to the study points out that “the efficacy of high-dose supplementation of vitamin D₃ in reducing risk of COVID-19 infection is mere extrapolation of currently available evidence, which is often conflicting, on the effectiveness of vitamin D3 in reducing risk of other respiratory tract infections.”
• To this, the authors have a lengthy rebuttal.

My bottom line at the moment: the science is still unfolding.  What to do while waiting for further research?  I like these Considerations for Obesity, Vitamin D, and Physical Activity Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic:

Until further breakthroughs emerge, we should remember that modifiable lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity should not be marginalized. Decades of empirical evidence have supported both as key factors promoting health and wellness. In times of crisis, whether it be real or perceived, there is something to be said about the benefits of empowering people to actively preserve their own health.

Get outside, move around, expose some skin to sunlight.  Even in winter.

The potato industry has a problem.  Some nutrition experts do not recommend them and argue that potatoes—especially French fries—raise blood sugar levels and should be excluded from recommendations to increase vegetable intake (I love potatoes in any form but try not to overeat them—everything in moderation if you can manage that, and I can).

In any case, the The Alliance for Potato Research & Education (APRE) is devoted to protecting the reputation—and sales–of potatoes, and funds research for that purpose.

The study: Daily intake of non-fried potato does not affect markers of glycaemia and is associated with better diet quality compared with refined grains: a randomised,crossover study in healthy adults.   EA Johnston et al.  British Journal of Nutrition (2020), 123, 1032–1042.

Results: “Compared with refined grains, the HEI-2015 Healthy Eating Index] scores..were higher following the potato condition. Consuming non-fried potatoes resulted in higher diet quality, K  [potassium] and fibre intake, without adversely affecting cardiometabolic risk.”

Financial Support: The Alliance for Potato Research and Education provided funds for the research conducted. Their staff were not involved in any aspects of conducting the study, analyzing the data or interpreting the results presented.

Comment: The APRE says it remains firmly committed to the scientific integrity of industry-funded research”  Its guidelines for research integrity sound good, but don’t address the inherent problems of industry-funded research: the well established “funding effect” that virtually guarantees that industry-funded research will produce results that favor the sponsor’s interests, and the also well established observation that investigator bias tends to occur at an unconscious level.  The exclusion of fried potatoes from this particular study suggests that the investigators know that frequent eating of French fries is a marker of poor diet quality.  I think potatoes have a place in healthy diets and that much depends on their particular role and preparation.  As with much in nutrition, the potato situation is complicated, and industry funding does not help with clarification.

Plant-based is big business.  Want to find out just how big?

One week to go: FREE plant-based meat webinar with Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, Meati Foods, Planterra Foods, GFI: Where is the plant-based meat category heading, and how reliable are some of the predictions out there about how much this market could be worth over the next 10-15 years?… Read more

Two food business newsletters featured these products recently.  Here are a few selections (for the complete lcollections, click on the heading links).

FoodNavigator-USA’s Special Edition: Plant-based protein trends

From pea, soy and wheat to canola, which plant-based proteins have the potential to move from niche to the mainstream, and what factors are motivating purchasing decisions, from price and consistency of supply, to amino acid profiles, taste, functionality, sustainability credentials, to non-GMO claims? Where is the plant-based meat category heading next and how are the dynamics of the plant-based milk segment changing?

• DSM gears up for 2022 launch of canola protein isolate:  Canola is the third largest oilseed crop after soybeans and cottonseed, with an established supply chain (for oil crushing) featuring protein with a highly attractive nutritional profile and great functional properties. So why has taken so long for canola protein to be commercialized?.. Read  
• Oatmilk edges past soymilk for #2 slot in US plant-based milk retail market:  US retail sales of plant-based milk rose 17% to $2.362bn in measured channels in the year to September 6, 2020, according to new data from SPINS, which shows oatmilk – a relative newcomer – edging past soymilk to take the #2 spot in the category behind market leader almondmilk… Read
• Study: Plant-based meat alternatives improve cardiovascular risk factors compared with animal meat:  Adults who swapped out animal protein for plant-based protein saw lower levels of LDL cholesterol, moderate weight loss, and similar sodium intake and blood pressure levels (compared to animal protein consumption) after eight weeks, revealed a two-phase study conducted by researchers at Stanford Medicine and funded by Beyond Meat… Read
• Tofu’s time has come, says Nasoya: ‘It’s the simplest form of plant-based protein on the market’  US retail sales of tofu – which for years occupied a solid, but sleepy, niche in a plant-based meat category increasingly propelled by brands seeking to precisely match the taste and texture of conventional meat – have caught fire in recent weeks, says the firm behind America’s #1 tofu brand… Read
• Hannaford amps up plant-based offerings, enjoys triple digit growth in fresh plant-based meat  Hannaford has significantly expanded distribution of plant-based items across the store, adding signage to make it easier for shoppers to identify plant-based products, and introduced long-term price promotions and marketing efforts including digital offers with unusually high redemption rates as part of an ongoing collaboration with the Plant Based Foods Association… Read
• Impossible Foods hits back at ‘disingenuous, desperate disinformation campaign’ as Lightlife attacks ‘hyperprocessed’ ingredients:  In an open letter slammed by Impossible Foods as cynical and disingenuous and dismissed by one commentator as a “PR stunt,” Lightlife Foods has attempted to distinguish itself from ‘food tech’ rivals in the plant-based meat arena by positioning itself as “a real food company,” with products “developed in a kitchen, not a lab.”.. Read

Special Edition: Plant-based innovation in APAC  [Asia-Pacific region]

The meat substitute market in APAC is expected to reach US$17.1bn in 2020, from US$15.3bn last year according to Euromonitor International. The ongoing pandemic is set to accelerate this growth alongside health, safety and environmental factors from consumers. In this special edition, we bring you the firms developing plant-based meat, egg and beverages, all this to meet APAC’s soaring protein needs.

• Liquid gold: India’s EVO Foods to launch plant-based liquid egg this year and eyes US expansion:  Mumbai-based EVO Foods is set to launch its first product in India, a plant-based liquid egg made from legumes by the end of the year with plans to enter the US market next year… Read
• One step further: Australia’s Fenn Foods set to launch ‘world’s first carbon neutral’ minced meat in APAC:  Brisbane plant-based company Fenn Foods is set to release three new products early next year under its vEEF brand, one of which will be the ‘world’s first carbon neutral’ plant-based meat… Read
• Multi-meat mimicry: Japan’s DAIZ develops new soy-processing tech to ape conventional meats:  Japan-based DAIZ has developed a new form of soybean processing technology that is able to mimic multiple types of conventional meats such as chicken, pork and fish, opening up a new avenue of additive-free plant-based creations for food manufacturers… Read  
• Affordability key in Asia: Thai plant-based meat firm pitches price point at half of Beyond Burger:  Thai plant-based meat firm Let’s Plant Meat jumped from conceptualisation to commercialisation in just 12 months for its plant-based burger patty – and is now determined to make the product ‘affordable for the masses’ in Asia… Read
• India’s Imagine Meats to roll out plant-based kebab, biryani and curry products in Mumbai:  India’s newest plant-based food start-up, Imagine Meats is set to launch a meat alternative range comprising kebabs, biryani and curry at the end of this year… Read

Before getting into the statistics, let’s start with the on-the-ground reality: real people, often with small children, are too poor to feed themselves and their families properly.  For the human impact of pandemic poverty, see:

• New York Times Magazine: America at Hunger’s Edge

Prior to the pandemic, poverty and food insecurity were declining in America.

•  Census Bureau report: official poverty rate was 10.5 percent in 2019, down from 11.8 percent in 2018
• USDA Household Food Security report, 2019:  10.5 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time in 2019, down from 11.1 percent in 2018.

But now we have pandemic-induced illness, job losses, school closures, business closures.

• Food Research & Action Center report: more than one in 10 adults with children say they do not have enough to eat. The rates are double for Black and Latino households with children.
• IRI Market Research report: SNAP enrollments include 13% of American households (but this can be good for the retail food business)

The USDA won’t report on food insecurity for another year, so it’s difficult to know what’s happening right now.  USDA data on SNAP are available only through April.

Even then, early signs were alarming.

We badly need effective policies to protect people against hunger.

Additional USDA resources

• Food Security in the U.S.  Food security—access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life—is one requirement for a healthy, well-nourished population. ERS plays a leading role in Federal research on food security in U.S. households and communities.
• Food Security in the United States: This product provides information about publicly available data from national surveys that include the U.S. Food Security Survey Module. Technical information is provided to facilitate appropriate use of the data, and links are provided to access data online or to order the data files on CD-ROM.
• Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2019: This supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2019 describes food insecurity and how it is assessed.

A reader, Betsy Keller, forwarded a message she received because she belongs to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, (formerly the American Dietetic Association), the professional association for Registered Dietitian Nutritionists.

From: “Today’s Dietitian” <todays_dietitian@gvpublishing.com>

Subject: Questions about pesticides and food? We have answers.

The message originates from Bayer, the German drug company that bought Monsanto a few years ago.

Monsanto invented the herbicide glyphosate, which is used to kill backyard weeds as well as those that occur in fields of GMO corn and soybeans,.

Glyphosate has been linked to cancer risk, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Tens of thousands of people with non-Hodgkin lymphoma are suing Bayer for glyphosate-related damages.  The courts have ruled in favor of several such plaintiffs.

Bayer has agreed to pay $10 billion (!) to settle these lawsuits.

In the message to dietitians, Bayer says:

Pesticides enable farmers to produce safe, quality foods at affordable prices.They also help farmers provide an abundance of nutritious, all-year-round foods, which are necessary for human health. Crop quantity and quality rely on crop protection. For example, a U.S. study estimated that without fungicides, yields of most fruit and vegetables would fall by 50-90 percent. Moreover, pesticides decrease exposure to food contaminated with harmful micro-organisms and naturally occurring toxins, preventing food-related illnesses.

Oddly, the Bayer message says not one word about glyphosate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or the lawsuits.

Bayer must want dietitians to reassure their clients that pesticides like glyphosate are safe.  Bayer must not want dietitians to link glyphosate to cancer risk.

I can’t help thinking that Bayer must have paid Today’s Dietitian to send this message to the AND membership.

I can’t think of any other reason why this association would allow a message like this to be sent to its members.

Correction

Several readers wrote to point out that the Bayer message comes from Today’s Dietitian, not from the Academy.

For example, Nancy Teeter, RDN, gave me permission to quote her:

Thank you for all you do to keep the public informed.  As a registered dietitian nutritionist, I was appalled that Bayer sponsored an educational program for us. I believe you are correct when you say follow the money. Today’s Dietitian is a private company and appears to accept advertising dollars from anyone. AND charges organizations for the use [of] the mailing lists, so everyone wins financially. At the same time, the reputation of our organization is diminished.

She points out: “They also sell their email lists to advertisers.”

Mary Purdy, MS, RDN, who also gave permission, writes:

Thank you for spreading the word about this.  A group of dietitians (myself included) are formulating a letter in response to this and I have already been in touch personally with Today’s Dietitian about this issue which I find extremely concerning.

It is very important to clarify that this message came from Today’s Dietitian, (https://www.todaysdietitian.com/) which is a totally separate entity from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.  https://www.eatright.org/

The Academy has its own set of issues, but I wanted you to be sure that your readers understand that the pesticide info from Bayer came from an eblast from the publisher and business ” Today’s Dietitian”.  This org definitely needs to be held accountable  for this kind of irresponsible corporate sponsorship that spreads erroneous and harmful information so thank you for your efforts here.

She adds: “I also let Today’s Dietitian know that I would be unsubscribing from their eblasts and have encouraged others to do so as well.”

She also adds: “And yes, you are right.  Bayer is an official sponsor of Today’s Dietitian and pays them. They were also one of the sponsors of their recent symposium (At which I spoke… ironically about environmental chemicals and supporting detoxification and elimination organs with diet!).  Here is the website:  you can go to “Sponsors” and see Bayer there among others. https://www.todaysdietitian.com/ss20/”

And she forwarded the letter she received from a rep from Today’s Dietitian.  Here are the relevant excerpts:

Thank you for reaching out and expressing your thoughts and concerns regarding the Bayer ad and Today’s Dietitian….Having been a friend of TD  for so long, I’m sure you are aware that the primary support for the publication comes from advertising revenue. Without advertisements, TD does not exist. That said, as with other advertising-driven business models, TD does not endorse or support any product, service, or entity advertised in the magazine or its brand extensions. TD simply offers vehicles for advertisers to reach the brand’s audience.

While you may not agree with the advertisement in question, the advertiser obviously finds value in reaching registered dietitians. Otherwise, they would not be interested in promoting to this professional audience. Just as any other audience that consumes advertising can use its own judgement to decide whether or not to explore an advertised item, so too can the TD readership decide whether or not to pursue any further engagement with the advertiser.

Dietitians: here’s your chance.  Act now.

• Unsubscribe to Today’s Dietitian
• Tell AND you do not want your contact information sold to advertisers.

Marta Zaraska, the author of Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession With Meat and, more recently, Growing Young: How Friendship, Optimism and Kindness Can Help You Live to 100, sent me this message:

While doing research on my 3rd book I stumbled upon a research paper in which the authors “forgot” to disclose connections to the meat industry. I thought this may be interesting to you. Here is a link to the paper – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505

And here is a link proving that the lead author is taking money from the meat industry – which was not disclosed in the paper: https://www.usi.edu/liberal-arts/focus-newsletter/liberal-arts-achievements/la-achievements-2018-2019/

I thought this was well worth a look.  The full paper is here.

Title: “Meat and mental health: a systematic review of meat abstention and depression, anxiety, and related phenomena.”  Dobersek U, et al.  Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2020, published ahead of print.

Method: This is an meta-analysis of previously published papers (18) that compared the psychologica health of meat consumers and meat abstainers.

Conclusion: “The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors…Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health.”

When I saw this conclusion, I immediately wondered: “Who paid for this?”  Bingo!

Funding: This study was funded in part 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 [for an interpretation of this last statement, see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat].

What got Marta Zaraska’s attention was the denial of conflicted interests related to this paper.

Disclosure: “No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).”

But the University of Southern Indiana praises the 2018-2019 accomplishments of the first author of this paper as follows (my emphasis):

Dr. Urska Dobersek, assistant professor of Psychology, and her students presented their research, “Are levels of testosterone, willingness to cheat and exercise motives related?” and “The relationship between facial asymmetry and exercise” at the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity national conference in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dobersek also received a $10,555 grant from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to conduct a systematic review on “Beef for a Happier and Healthier Life.“

Oops.  Omission of this grant gives the appearance of conflicted interest and should have been disclosed.  I hope the author corrects this oversight immediately.

If the other authors have similar connections to meat industry group, they too should disclose them.

The Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has formed an alliance with the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) to

provide NAMI’s members, workplace safety and health professionals, the meatpacking and processing workforce, and the public with information, guidance, and access to training resources that will help them protect workers by reducing and preventing exposure to Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), and understand the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

NAMI’s motto is “One unified voice for meat and poultry companies, large and small.”  Its members are listed here.

OSHA’s stated mission

With the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.

• Do we see a potential conflict of interest here?  Indeed, we do.

Basically, the Alliance aims to

• Share information…regarding potential exposure to COVID-19 and the challenges for exposure control in meat packing and processing facilities.
• Develop information on the recognition of COVID-19 transmission risks and best practices.
• Conduct outreach through joint forums, roundtable discussions, stakeholder meetings, webinars, or other formats on OSHA guidance and NAMI’s good practices.
• Speak, exhibit, or appear at OSHA and NAMI conferences…regarding good practices.
• Encourage NAMI members…to utilize OSHA’s On-Site Consultation Program to improve health and safety and prevent COVID-19 transmission.

This looks like meat industry propaganda to me.

As quoted by Food Dive, Marc Perrone, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, called the deal “an outrage.” His statement:

Throughout the pandemic, employers have continued to keep workers and the general public in the dark about illness in the plants while trying to shield themselves from any liability for the role they played in the loss of life. It is shocking that the Department of Labor is now giving the meat industry even more power to police itself on worker safety.

He’s not kidding.  The Food and Environment Reporting Network is tracking cases.  As of August 17, its figures show confirmed cases of Covid-19 in

• 474 meatpacking plants among 40,708 meatpacking work (189 deaths)
• 269 food processing plants among 8658 food processing workers (34 deaths)

No surprisae, workers have filed thousands of complaints with OSHA.

What has OSHA done for them?  It co-issued (with CDC) guidance on what companies ought to be doing about distancing and masking. 

Are companies following this guidelines?  Not with much conviction.

That is why workers have had to resort to filing lawsuits against Smithfield Foods and Tyson Foods—and OSHA—as summarized by ProPublica.

According to Politico (behind a paywall, unfortunately), the lawsuits reveal that OSHA admits that it is unable to police its own safety guidelines.

Although an inspector from OSHA’s Wilkes-Barre Area Office witnessed employees working “2 to 3 feet” apart without physical barriers — which goes against the Centers for Disease Control and OSHA’s safety recommendations — the agency concluded there was no “imminent danger” at the plant, the inspector testified during a July 31 hearing.

As always, it’s hard to make up stuff like this.