A lot of good stuff is going on about school food these days.  Here are five items.

I.  Universal school meals:

Massachusetts has become the 8^th state to authorize universal school meals for kids in public schools.

Five of the eight states that have passed universal school meal programs did so this year. Minnesota and New Mexico enacted their policies in March, with Vermont following in June,  Michigan in July and now Massachusetts.  [Others are underway; here’s a current list]

II.  The USDA’s Healthy School Meals Incentives

• Lifting Up School Meals
• Resources: Media Toolkit, School Meals Webpage, Support for Schools webpage
• List of the Healthy Meals Incentives small/rural school district grantees

III.  Water-in-schools initiatives

A new study just out: “Effectiveness of a School Drinking Water Promotion and Access Program for Overweight Prevention” finds drinking water associated with healthier weights.

• The US News and World Report article on the study.
• A short video of study findings is available in English and Spanish
• National Drinking Water Alliance article
• Water First resources are available here

IV.  Plant-based school meals

Another study, Plant-Based Trends in California’s School Lunches, produced these findings:

• 68% of districts offer plant-based options daily or weekly, a 54% increase since 2019.
• Plant-based entrees increased by 16% (but account for only 8% of entrées offered).
• Districts are serving higher quality, whole plant-based entrees.

But then things get complicated:

• Processed meat entrees account for 18% of all entrées offered, an increase of 11% since 2019.
• More the half (57%) of all offerings on school menus contain cheese, and some of these are highly processed and include meat (e.g., pepperoni pizza).

California has a School Food Best Practices Fund for purchasing high-quality plant-based offerings, along with locally grown, minimally processed and sustainably grown food.

V.   School Nutrition policies and practices

A new study, “School Nutrition Environment and Services: Policies and Practices That Promote Healthy Eating Among K-12 Students,” says these interventions work:

Providing school nutrition professionals with professional development

• Improving the palatability of school meals
• Offering taste tests
• Pre-slicing fruit
• Providing recess before lunch
• Offering incentives for trying healthier options
• Providing access to drinking water

Comment:  Yes on universal school meals.  Everyone should be working on states to pass this legislation.  As for what works in schools, these interventions are well within the possible.  Get to work!

When I saw this article—Study: Orange and pomegranate extract impacts major marker for healthy ageing—my first thought was “Who paid for this?”  Bingo.

The study: Ahles, S., Cuijpers, I., Hartgens, F. et al. The Effect of a Citrus and Pomegranate Complex on Physical Fitness and Mental Well-Being in Healthy Elderly: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Nutr Health Aging 26, 839–846 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-022-1834-4

• Objectives: This study investigates whether a citrus and pomegranate complex (CPC) improves physical fitness, mental well-being, and blood biomarkers for oxidative stress and endothelial function in healthy elderly.
• Design: A randomized placebo-controlled cross-over trial.
• Participants: The study included 36 healthy elderly aged 60–75 years old.
• Intervention and Measurements: Participants received four weeks of CPC supplementation and performed the handgrip strength and senior fitness test. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed and blood samples were analyzed for oxidative stress and endothelial function markers.
• Results: After four weeks of CPC supplementation, handgrip strength significantly improved (p=0.019), compared to placebo. Moreover, the thinking, memory, learning, and concentration facets were improved (p=0.042), compared to placebo, and plasma malondialdehyde decreased, compared to placebo (p=0.033). The intervention did not affect senior fitness and the other QOL domains and blood parameters.
• Conclusion: Four weeks of daily CPC supplementation significantly improves handgrip strength and self-evaluated measures of psychological function in healthy older adults. Further research should focus on mechanisms associated with physical performance.
• Funding: Funding: Authors IC and FT are supported by the Province of Limburg, The Netherlands [grant number HEFI-2]. This research project was supported by BioActor B.V.
• Ethics declarations: Conflict of interest: S.A. is an employee of BioActor BV. F.H. is a sports medicine consultant and owner of Sports Medicine Center Maastricht*Parkstad. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the preparation of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Comment: This is a classic example of a study nobody but the product maker would ever do.  The statement that the funders had nothing to do with the study design or anything else may or may not be true—there have been too many examples of its not being true to take any such statement seriously without much further discussion.  Even with that assurance, researchers who accept industry funding rarely recognize industry influence—it seems to occur at some unconscious level.

Martin Caraher, John Coveney, Mickey Chopra, editors.  Handbook of Food Security and Society.  Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.  

I did a blurb for the back cover:

This Handbook argues convincingly that ending hunger means far more than providing food to those in deed.  It means transforming society to one that is more equitable, socially as well as economically.  The chapters here are a rich source of data, analysis, and inspiration about how to work toward that transformation—and the sooner, the better.

The 24 chapters by many authors cover case studies (Ireland, South Africa), measurement and naming of hunger and food insecurity, the right-to-food movement, lived experiences, gender issues, policy approaches (successful and not), financialization, charitable and philanthropic approaches, and the effects of COVID-19 and the Ukraine war.

They also include critical theoretical and practical discussions of what can be done, from food banks to cooperatives to economic policies.

On this last point, Tim Lang’s concluding chapter on “The intransigence of food insecurity: questioning the realities,” makes the book worth reading on its own.

This chapter began with the argument that food insecurity is a material reality and almost entirely located in low-income countries with food deficits.  Instead, it has suggested that we should see food insecurity as both an absolute and a relative phenomenon, as socially determined, therefore socially resolved.  If we so wish, we could shift entire populations across the FAO’s food insecurity continuum.  This would require multiple points of intervention.  There is no single policy lever to right food wrongs.

I particularly like his table summarizing what food industries could do for food insecurity—lots, as it happens, not least paying workers higher wages.

In the Brave New World we now live in, food technology has scored a big win.  Food Navigator has the story: How does a cultivated chicken cell line meet kosher standards?

In a world first, OU Kosher [The kosher certification division of the Orthodox Union] has determined that the chicken cell line of Israeli start-up SuperMeat meets kosher standards.

In another world first, the OU has recognised cultivated meat as kosher and meat.

How is this even possible?

The OU’s recognition comes after a series of halachic discussions (concerning Jewish religious laws) and scientific reviews. The latter focused on avian embryogenesis and stem cells, including the observation of the excision of embryonic stem cells from a fertilised chicken egg prior to the appearance of blood spots.

SuperMeat worked closely with the OU and eminent rabbis to identify the vital elements of the sourcing and process to make sure that it holds to the highest standards of Kashrut [dietary laws]….

SuperMeat obtains the stem cells from very early after fertilisation of the egg at a precise time before the emergence of blood spots eliminating the necessity for slaughter and ensuring there is no blood involved in the process….SuperMeat does not use FBS [fetal bovine serum] or any other animal components in its media or process.

In my book about pet food with Malden Nesheim, Feed Your Pet Right, we wrote a chapter on Kosher pet food (one of my favorites).

The kosher laws are based on biblical injunctions against eating two kinds of animals, those that do not ruminate and do not have completely cloven hooves (Leviticus 11:26), and young animals cooked in their mother’s milk (Deuteronomy 14:21).   Thus, they forbid such things as eating pork or mixing meat and dairy foods at the same meal.

The Passover celebration requires one additional restriction.   Jews are not allowed to have in the house or to consume any foods containing chametz—wheat, wheat starch, wheat gluten, barley, oats, oat fiber, and other grains—precisely the ingredients in many pet foods.

Given the multiple and not always identifiable sources of ingredients in pet foods, it is difficult to imagine how pet foods can conform to Jewish dietary laws at any time, let alone at Passover.

Can pet foods be kosher?  Is it acceptable to hold Passover seders for dogs and cats, as some do?  And must pet owners who observe Jewish dietary laws feed their animals according to such laws?  The answers are typically Talmudic: yes, and no.

Super Meat is not on the market yet.  But aren’t you relieved to know that when it is, the Orthodox Union has given its blessing to cell-cultured meat.

Brave New World indeed.

I was induced to watch all of this video because Chris MacAskill, whom I do not know personally but who quoted me a couple of times briefly in a previous show, starts out his investigations by displaying my book Food Politics.  

This is titled, “How Food Myths SPREAD: Fact Checking Dr David Diamond”

I don’t know Dr. Diamond either, but he has some unusual and quite strong opinions about nutrition, which MacAskill, a historian, demolishes one after another.

MacAskill checks references, demonstrates the flaws in statements taken out of context, and does so carefully, compellingly, and entertainingly.

This is really worth watching (and I do appreciate the shout outs).

The Examination, a brand-new news outlet, and the Washington Post jointly published a jaw-dropping article last week about dietitians paid by food and supplement companies to defend and promote their products on Instagram and TikTok.

Why jaw-dropping?  Two reasons: the media—videos, posts—embedded in the article (these are amazing to see), and the non-disclosure of payment.

As the World Health Organization raised questions this summer about the risks of a popular artificial sweetener, a new hashtag began spreading on the social media accounts of health professionals: #safetyofaspartame….What these dietitians didn’t make clear was that they were paid to post the videos by American Beverage, a trade and lobbying group representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and other companies….The food, beverage, and dietary supplement industries are paying dozens of registered dietitians that collectively have millions of social media followers to help sell products and deliver industry-friendly messages on Instagram and TikTok, according to an analysis by The Examination and The Washington Post.

Here’s just one example:

Registered dietitian Lindsay Pleskot, of Vancouver, British Columbia, has posted videos of herself eating ice cream and peanut butter cups while telling people that denying themselves sugary food will only make cravings worse….These and other posts were paid for by the Canadian Sugar Institute.

I missed posting these last week (oops).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Of course it was.

II.  I read about this one in ConscienHealth.

Burning Fat with Wild Blueberries in 11 Athletes

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to end the week with this unusual example.

Yes, avocados are fruits (hint: fruits have seeds).

This story begins with an emailed ad from an avocado trade association to subscribers to Today’s Dietitian.

In the largest study of its kind, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, researchers across multiple institutions looked at the impact of consuming one avocado per day on weight-related measures, markers of cardiometabolic risk and diet quality—insights you won’t want to miss.

If you click around to further discussion, you get this:

Daily avocado consumption led to reductions in total and LDL cholesterol and improved diet quality compared to the control group. The Avocado Nutrition Center supported this study, and although the findings from one study cannot be generalized to larger populations, this study supports a growing body of evidence that suggests consuming heart-healthy avocados is associated with better diet quality.

Let’s take a look:

• The study: Effect of Incorporating 1 Avocado Per Day Versus Habitual Diet on Visceral Adiposity: A Randomized Trial. J Am Heart Assoc. . 2022 Jul 19;11(14):e025657.  doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025657. Epub 2022 Jul 5.  Authors: Alice H Lichtenstein ¹, Penny M Kris-Etherton ², Kristina S Petersen ³, Nirupa R Matthan ¹, Samuel Barnes ⁴, Mara Z Vitolins ⁵, Zhaoping Li ⁶, Joan Sabaté ⁷, Sujatha Rajaram ⁷, Shilpy Chowdhury ⁴, Kristin M Davis ⁸, Jean Galluccio ¹, Cheryl H Gilhooly ¹, Richard S Legro ⁹, Jason Li ⁶, Laura Lovato ¹⁰, Letitia H Perdue ¹⁰, Gayle Petty ¹, Anna M Rasmussen ⁶, Gina Segovia-Siapco ⁷, Rawiwan Sirirat ⁷, April Sun ⁶, David M Reboussin ¹⁰
• Conclusions: “In conclusion, in this randomized controlled multicenter parallel trial, the addition of 1 avocado per day to the habitual diet for 6 months in individuals with visceral adiposity did not reduce VAT and had minimal effect on risk factors associated with cardiometabolic disorders.”
• Funding: This work was supported by the Avocado Nutrition Center.

Comment: I don’t usually include the names of authors of industry-funded studies because I don’t see the “funding effect” (a higher probability of positive results) as personal to individual investigators; I see it as systematic.  But I listed these authors because they produced something quite rare: an industry-funded study that did not find positive results.  And they said so explicitly, without hedging or trying to spin the results so they looked  more favorable.

The avocado marketers did the spinning.  This, alas, is yet another hazard of  doing studies funded by food trade associations with vested interests in research outcome.  Investigators have no control over how the sponsor will use or spin their research results, as we see in this example.

Addition, September 16

I often hear criticisms that I don’t deal with the science when I post industry-funded studies.  I don’t because how the science is conducted is rarely the problem.  Instead, industry influence turns up most frequently in the study design or in the interpretation of the results.  That’s what’s happening here, as a reader, mrpicasso2, writes:

Wow! This is astounding how the Avocado marketers try to spin the results in their favor. “Changes in most secondary and additional outcome measures (cardiometabolic risk factors), except for modest decreases in total cholesterol and LDL‐C concentrations, were not statistically significant” became “Daily avocado consumption led to reductions in total and LDL cholesterol and improved diet quality compared to the control group.”

And even the “improved diet quality” is a big stretch because the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) values (even when split into below and above the median subgroups) were not significantly different. It’s true the avocado arm values were numerically higher (0.064 vs 0.044, and 0.083 vs 0.069) but without reaching statistical significance they are indistinguishable.

Of course the Avocado marketers don’t mention that there were 9 adverse events in the Avocado diet arm compared with none in the habitual diet group.

This reminds me of the story of the boy who was so excited to get a pile of horse manure for his birthday because he reasoned that with so much manure there had to be a pony near by.