Search results: a life in food

As I noted earlier, Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill without gutting SNAP but President Trump exacted a price for signing it—making it harder for States to exempt participants from work requirements.

The USDA released its new work-requirement rules just as Congress was passing the bill (here is the USDA’s quick Infographic summary).

As Politico put it, “USDA unveils crackdown on SNAP waivers.”

In his Orwellian press release, USDA Secretary Purdue said the new rules are:

intended to move more able-bodied recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to self-sufficiency through the dignity of work. The rule is meant to restore the system to what it was meant to be: assistance through difficult times, not lifelong dependency…Long-term reliance on government assistance has never been part of the American dream.

In an even more Orwellian op-ed, Purdue said:

This restores the dignity of work to a sizeable segment of our population, while it is also respectful of the taxpayers who fund the program.

Americans are generous people who believe it is their responsibility to help their fellow citizens when they encounter a difficult stretch. That is the commitment behind SNAP. But like other Federal welfare programs, it was never intended to be a way of life. A central theme of the Trump administration has been to expand prosperity for all Americans, which includes helping people lift themselves out of pervasive poverty.

Trump’s statement outdoes anything Orwell could have imagined:

Today’s action will help Americans transition from welfare to gainful employment, strengthening families and uplifting communities…That was a difficult thing to get done, but the farmers wanted it done. We all wanted it done. I think, in the end, it’s going to make a lot of people very happy.

Why Orwellian?

Farmers?  Strengthening families?  Uplifting communities?  Making people happy?  Trump has to be kidding.

The true purpose of the new requirements is to reduce SNAP enrollment, never mind that most people who participate in SNAP really need it.  The USDA says the new policy will 755,000 people out of the current 39 million.

Under current SNAP rules, adults who can work (able-bodied adults without dependents— ABAWDs) must work or be in training at least 80 hours per month.  Otherwise they are only allowed to get SNAP benefits for up to three months in a three-year period.

But states can apply for waivers of this time limit, and 36 states have done so.

One reality check: Because the USDA does not keep data on food stamp recipients who participate in state employment and training programs, or on whether such programs do anything useful to help SNAP recipients achieve self-sufficiency, there is no way to know whether the new requirements will do any good.

I’m not the only one saying so.  The Government Accountability Office has just issued a report making precisely this point.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains:

Taking essential benefits like food benefits away from those who are unemployed wouldn’t address the inequities in the labor market or the challenges that so many workers face. Instead of punishing struggling workers, policymakers should support them through ideas with bipartisan support, such as a higher minimum wage, a stronger Earned Income Tax Credit, and paid family leave.

Maybe someday.

Two new Index Systems rank countries for sustainability and corporations for promoting health.

I.  Sustainability Index.

The Economist and Barilla have devised a new, interactive Index that ranks countries on the basis of food loss and waste, sustainable agriculture, and the ability to meet nutritional challenges.  Its scoring system goes from 0 (terrible) to 100 (perfect).

The top ten scoring countries are:

None of the scores is exemplary.  The US rank is #26.

II.  Access to Nutrition Index

The Access to Nutrition Foundation (Netherlands) ranks corporations on their strategies, policies, and actions to address obesity and diet-related diseases in the US.

The overall rankings, shown here, are relatively low.  Some do better than others on governance, products, accessibility, marketing, lifestyles, labeling, and engagement.

The highest scores are for labeling.  The lowest scores are for accessibility.

Indexes like these are useful for understanding where we are.  They should inspire us to action.

The industry newsletter, NutraIngredients.com, regularly posts Special Editions on Probiotics, meaning collections of its articles on the topic.  These promote the benefits—to digestion and many other physiological and mental aspects—of eating healthy bacteria.   But do probiotics really work?  And could they actually be harmful?  See comments below these selected articles.

• • Baby faeces’ ‘good bacteria’ a solid basis for disease-tackling probiotic supplement: ‘Good bacteria’ found in infant faeces could form the basis of a probiotic supplement that could help lower disease risk as researchers point to babies’ good health and absence of age-related diseases as good starting points… Read 
  • Survival of the fittest: Gut colonisation study could lead to gene-targeting probiotics: New probiotic products targeting individual genes for gut microbial diversity could be on the horizon after researchers outline a data-based approach that identifies the growth of beneficial microbes… Read 
  • Use of probiotics linked to brain sluggishness and stomach bloating: Study:  The use of probiotics could lead to a build-up of bacteria in the gut causing brain fogginess, US researchers conclude, as they also note its use is linked to bloating of the stomach… Read
  • No BBC, probiotics are not ‘quite useless’: A new BBC article dismisses the benefits of probiotics because a study failed to find colonization. It is a serious mistake to confuse colonization with efficacy and we need to get this message across to consumers… Read  
  • Delivery systems a ‘determining factor’ in probiotic success, suggests Lumina Intelligence: Delivery systems for probiotic supplements will determine probiotic storage, release time and viability through the body, according to recent research with these systems’ ability largely determining product success… Read  
  • Prebiotics as a concept still not well understood by many consumers, experts say: Research done by the Global Prebiotic Association shows that prebiotics as a concept is gaining traction with dedicated supplement users but has a long way to go to gain mainstream acceptance… Read
  • Focus on functional sports benefits seen as growing opportunity within microbiome research: Research in the effects of exercise on the microbiome has boosted not just a recent startup, but will fuel a growing category within the wider field of probiotics, an expert says… Read
  • Why PepsiCo, Coca-cola are betting on functional food and beverage brands: Legacy CPG companies PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have each snapped up or invested heavily in a functional food and beverage brand this year… Read
  • Highlights from the Harvard Probiotics Symposium: The recent Harvard Probiotics Symposium brought together scientific experts from across the globe to discuss: “Gut Health, Microbiota & Probiotics Throughout the Lifespan: Dietary Influences”. Here’s what we learned… Read
  • Prebiotic combination shows metabolic benefits for adults with acne: Pilot data: A combination of fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) and galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) prebiotics may improve glycemic and lipid metabolic measures in women with acne, suggests a small study from Italy… Read

Two recent articles in Cell raise questions about the benefits of probiotics.

• Personalized Gut Mucosal Colonization Resistance to Empiric Probiotics Is Associated with Unique Host and Microbiome Features: Probiotics transiently colonize the human gut mucosa in highly individualized patterns, thereby differentially impacting the indigenous microbiome and host gene-expression profile, a trait which is predictable by baseline host and microbiome features, but not by stool shedding.
• Post-Antibiotic Gut Mucosal Microbiome Reconstitution Is Impaired by Probiotics and Improved by Autologous FMT: Probiotics perturb rather than aid in microbiota recovery back to baseline after antibiotic treatment in humans.

In translation:

• The murine [mouse] & human gut mucosal microbiome only partially correlates with stool
• Mice feature an indigenous-microbiome driven colonization resistance to probiotics
• Humans feature a person-specific gut mucosal colonization resistance to probiotics
• Probiotic colonization is predictable by pre-treatment microbiome & host features

In further translation:

• Not everyone responds to probiotics, which means that they may be worth a try and you may get lucky.

And an even more recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine questions whether probiotics might be harmful.  It warns about:

• The safety of bacteria in probiotic supplements has not been fully established.
• They can lead to infections and allergic reactions.
• Probiotic supplements often do not meet manufacturing standards (identity, purity, strength, composition).
• Introduction of new genes for antibiotic resistance into microbiomes.

The article concludes:

Consumers and physicians should not assume that the label on probiotic supplements provides adequate information to determine if consuming the live microorganism is worth the risk.

What to think about all this?  If you like yogurt, enjoy!  But supplements are another matter.

The food industry is intensely interested in personalized nutrition because it can create and sell products appeared to be aimed directly at individual lifestyles and preferences.

This approach is aimed much more at marketing than it is about public health.

With that said, take a look at how the food industry is using this idea.

Special Edition: Personalized Nutrition

The future is personal, but the revolution is already taking place around us. Innovative science is combining with entrepreneurial endeavor to bring personalized nutrition to our fingertips.

Personalized nutrition is breaking down the silos and bringing together experts in genetics and genomic profiling, microbiology, nutrition and diet, mobile technology, big data, healthcare and more.

In this special edition we talk to the pioneers and experts in this sector, the scientists and the emerging brands, and the tech developers bringing the personalized nutrition future to the present day.

• Personalized nutrition approaches helping to drive evolution of supplement retailing: Personalized nutrition is being folded into the ongoing evolution of retailing in the dietary supplement space, market experts say… Read
• Research backs personalized nutrition process, even if data on customized products lacks, expert says: While personalized nutrition proponents like to push the benefits of the approach, there is little research that backs the notion that products customized for individual consumers lead to better health outcomes than do more generic formulas. But that misses the point, said one expert… Read
• Persona CEO: ‘Chase the shiny new technology that has a big price tag – that’s not always the best solution’: Is a lifestyle questionnaire ‘personal’ enough for personalized nutrition? Persona’s founder and CEO Jason Brown talks about growing a business in the personalized nutrition space.. Read
• Personalized nutrition ‘milestone’: InsideTracker data validates algorithmic platform to improve wellness: Data from 1,033 generally healthy individuals using InsideTracker shows that the automated, web-based personalized nutrition platform is capable of normalizing serum biomarker levels in healthy subjects… Read
• Food selfies and data: Nutrino wants to make personalized nutrition easier for users:A mathematician and an engineer bootstrapped a nutrition-tech company about seven years ago. Their goal was to create a platform that documents the diverse ways human bodies extract nutrition from food… Read
• ‘Hyper-personalised’ recommendations: Spoon Guru targets global domination with growing list of partnerships:UK food tech start-up Spoon Guru has a goal of becoming the dominant technology platform for users looking for product recommendations based on specific lifestyle goals or dietary needs, says co-founder and CEO Markus Stripf, as the company looks to increase its partners globally and launch in the USA… Read
• Nordic Group: Nutrigenomics needs to be ‘done with integrity’ – it’s too early for direct consumer models: Nutrigenomics is gaining plenty of attention but it remains extremely complex and unadapted to direct-to-consumer models, says the MD of Nordic Group – owner of DNA Life and more recently AthGene… Read
• Lux Research: ‘It’s paramount that microbiome data is used for personalized nutrition’: A new market research report explores how the personalized nutrition space can elevate itself beyond “just recommending diets” and become an integral part of preventive health care… Read
• Weight loss presents ‘lucrative’ opportunity in nutrigenomics, says analyst: Nutrigenomics remains a growing niche within the burgeoning personalised nutrition trend but there is significant potential to spark mass market appeal with a focus on weight loss, says a consumer expert… Read

I signed a letter published in Le Monde on September 18:  La “lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles:” une urgence sanitaire mondial.  It is addressed to the The Third United Nations High-Level Meeting on Noncommunicable Diseases taking place in New York today.  Here it is in English translation.

The Fight Against Non-Communicable Diseases: A Global Emergency

Just 10 years ago, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria were the main worldwide threat for health. But today, Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, which only receive 2% of the total financing allocated by international health partners, constitute a health emergency in high-income countries and low-income countries alike.

Changes in food consumption and increasingly sedentary lifestyles have a strong impact on human health and the environment, and increase risks of developing NCDs. For over 10 years now, Non-Communicable Diseases have become the main causes of death in the world, leading to 15 million premature deaths every year.

Today, these changes in lifestyles are hitting hard low-income and intermediate countries. Contrary to common belief, a large number of inhabitants in West Africa are faced with overweight and obesity. Who could imagine that 38% of women of childbearing age there are already overweight and 15% are obese? The increase in the consumption of animal fats and industrial foodstuffs, combined with massive urbanization source of lifestyle change more conducive to NCDs,  are the causes of these epidemiological transitions.

The agri-food industry, the driver of these changes, has an impact on both human health and the environment. The intensification of production methods, the overconsumption of meat, the massive use of chemical products in agriculture (glyphosate), and the use of chemical substances and packaging (phthalates) to preserve food have a major impact on the environment and contribute to the high level of CO2 emissions. At the same time, too much fat, too much sugar, food with too many calories and a major consumption of sweetened beverages and alcohol, or food contaminated by pesticides, combined with a reduction in physical activity, are major risk factors for NCDs.

Diabetes is a perfect illustration of this strong link between the health of populations and the health of our planet and the related challenges. In 2017, 425 million people were living with diabetes. One person died from it every 6 seconds and the disease cost USD 723 bn. Diabetes is also the leading cause of blindness, persons undergoing dialysis and non-traumatic amputations around the world. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that by 2045, there will be 628 million patients, over 80% of which will be living in low-income and middle-income countries. Diabetes will affect 42 million people in Africa and will cost the African continent USD 6.6 bn. 90% of cases of diabetes would be avoidable if we adopted ambitious prevention policies aiming at changing eating behavior and sedentary lifestyles.

Unfortunately, this objective is still a dream. For people who are already suffering from diabetes, treatments are extremely expensive for the patient, their family, but also for governments. In certain countries, these treatments are not available to all, and in others, these treatments are available, but the cost is a huge burden. In Africa, an antidiabetic drug like insulin is only available in 40% of countries and at a very high price. For example, in Mali, 56% of households with a diabetic patient devote over 40% of their incomes to healthcare payments. Policies for access to treatments are consequently essential.

• Feed the planet more healthily in order to reduce the impact of poor nutrition on human health and the environment;
• Prevent chronic diseases in order to reduce their economic burden;
• Provide patients suffering from an NCD with access to treatments essential for their care at an affordable cost or “free” thanks to universal health coverage;
• Regulate private sector involvement in order to reduce conflicts of interests and achieve real progress in the quality of food products and access to treatments.

These challenges require taking urgent measures:

—Adopt a taxation and regulations that guarantee healthy and ecological nutrition

• Adopt taxes on alcohol and sweet beverages to reduce their consumption (based on the sugar tax model in France);
• Universalize labelling on food content (like Nutri-Score);
• Ban adverts on junk food targeting the youngest public;
• Adopt positive tax measures to make healthy products with high nutritional qualities cheaper.

—Develop prevention programs which will allow consumers to make better food choices, while ensuring there are living and working spaces favorable for doing a regular physical activity.

—Ensure access to high-quality treatments at a lower cost for NCDs and include the medical treatments/systems required for universal health coverage.

—Finance the global response against NCDs by a Trust Fund to structure effective prevention in countries which do not have sufficient means, and exchange expertise to support countries in their strategies to fight against NCDs.

Signatories

• Cynthia Fleury – Philosophe et Professeur au Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers)
• Stéphane Besançon – Directeur Général de l’ONG ONG Santé Diabète
• Gaël Giraud – Chief Economist Agence Française de Développement
• Cyril Dion – Réalisateur et cofondateur du mouvement Colibris
• Katie Dain – Directrice Générale de l’ONG NCD Alliance
• Pierre Salignon – Responsable des partenariats avec la société civile à l’Agence Française de Développement
• Marion Nestle – Professeur de Nutrition à l’Université de New York et écrivaine
• David Beran – Chercheur, service de médecine tropicale et humanitaire des Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève
• Jean Marie Milleliri – Secrétaire Général du Groupe d’intervention en santé publique et épidémiologie
• David Hacquin – Président de l’ONG Santé Diabète

Camille Mary – Coordinatrice ONG Santé Diabète

—Copyright ID4D

I find the details of trade policy almost impossible to understand (so many arcane rules, so many countries), and am grateful whenever I read something crystal clear.

Politico explains (behind a paywall, alas) how our trade war with China is hurting US soybean farmers, beginning with:

The good news: The European Union is buying lots more US soybeans than it used to.  Purchases are up 133% over last year, and now account for 52% of EU soybean imports.

The bad news: The EU is buying US soybeans because they are cheap.  Because China is not buying US soybeans, there is a glut; prices have fallen by 20%.

Estimates are that the EU will buy $2.5 billion this year.  But last year, China bought $12.3 billion in soybeans.  That’s nearly a $10 billion loss unless other buyers can be found (the estimate is a $7 billion loss).

China is now buying soybeans from Brazil, and at premium prices.

Here’s what the American Soybean Association has to say about all this.

One more indicator:  Politico also mentions an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal detailing how more than 2,500 US dairy farmers have resorted to GoFundMe campaigns to save their farms.

I wish we grew more food for people instead of food for animals or fuel for cars, and that our agricultural policy linked to health policy.

Maybe if we did that, we wouldn’t be in this situation.  But GoFundMe campaigns?

Maybe we just need real agricultural policies.

I listened in yesterday to the webinar on USDA’s proposed relocation and reorganization of the Economic Research Service.  Participants included Scott Swinton (Michigan State University), Cathie Woteki (former undersecretary for research at USDA), Susan Offutt (former ERS head), Gale Buchanan (another former undersecretary for research, USDA), and Stephen Censky (current USDA deputy secretary). The former officials were unanimous in arguing that the proposal to relocate the agency outside of Washington DC and reorganize it into the USDA Secretary’s office was “ill-conceived,” made no sense, was done without appropriate consultation, was potentially illegal, would politicize the agency, and would damage, if not destroy, an agency that is the jewel of USDA. The USDA says the reasons for doing this are easier recruitment, cheaper rent, closer alignment with the Secretary’s policy initiatives, and getting the agency closer to stakeholders.  None of these bears up under even the most casual scrutiny. So what is this really about? I’m guess that this is about getting political control over—silencing—an agency that conducts independent, unbiased, nonpartisan research that risks leading to inconvenient truths. Here, for example, are some recent publications [with my comments].

• Participation in USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Effect of Local Labor Market Conditions in Oregon: Local labor market conditions were strongly linked to the probability of leaving SNAP… When labor market conditions were measured at the local level, researchers estimated a greater responsiveness by SNAP recipients to labor market conditions, as opposed to what other researchers have measured at the State or national levels [if there aren’t jobs available, people will need to stay on SNAP].
• Household Food Security in the United States in 2017: An estimated 11.8 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2017, lacking access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all their members. That is down from 12.3 percent in 2016 [but still high].
• High-Poverty Schools Are More Likely To Adopt the Community Eligibility Provision of the USDA School Meal Programs: The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows eligible schools to offer USDA school meals to all students at no charge. During the 2016-17 school year, 47 percent of U.S. school districts eligible to use CEP used the provision in at least one school [less than half are giving kids free meals].

ERS is not broke and does not need fixing.  The proposal must be understood as an attempt to destroy the ERS.  Participants called for:

• Congressional hearings
• An independent cost-benefit analysis
• Delay further action until then or, better yet, a full stop

I am a big user of ERS data and a great admirer of the work of ERS economists. Other views on the webinar and this issue

• Agri-Pulse
• Center for Progressive Reform
• Politico (behind paywall, alas)

Additions, September 24

The groups that did the WEbinar have forwarded links:

• USDA Research Relocation and Reorganization: Perspectives from Former USDA Chief Scientists and Administrators (464 people registered).
• The recording is online .
• The slides are online.
• The webinar webpage is online.
• The sign-on letter—organizations only—to Congress is at www.tinyurl.com/ERS-Strong
• Another sign-on letter for former administration officials and heads of statistical agencies is at www.tinyurl.com/StrongERS4USDA.

These ask Congress to:

• retain the ERS in the national Capitol region;
• maintain and strengthen the integrity and independence of the ERS as a statistical agency; and
• keep the budget and personnel for the USDA Economic Research Service at least at FY 2018 levels.

Additions, September 25 (thanks to the Hagstrom Report

▪ USDA — Secretary Perdue response to Roberts and Stabenow
▪ American Statistical Association — Count on Stats
▪ — Fact Sheet
▪ — Friends of Agricultural Statistics and Analysis Sign-On Letter Opposing USDA re-organization and re-alignment of the Economic Research Service
▪ — USDA Economic Research Service Sign-On Letter – Former administration officials and statistical agency leaders
▪ — NIFA Relocation Letter to Congress
▪ Center for Progressive Reform — Draining Washington of Science and Talent

Here is the latest collection of industry articles on dairy alternatives and plant-based meats—all doing quite well these days.

Dairy Alternatives

DairyReporter.com has a Special Edition: The rise of these plant-based products.  

Many dairy companies, rather than ignoring the rise in plant-based alternatives to dairy products, are jumping on the bandwagon, either through developing their own vegan and vegetarian product range, or through acquisitions, such as Danone’s high-profile takeover of WhiteWave.  This special newsletter looks at some of the latest developments in the plant-based dairy alternatives space.

• Global Dairy Preferences, Perceptions, Priorities: As consumer attitudes about dairy are changing, regional and demographic differences add further complexity. Our global survey sheds light on key purchase influencers for dairy and dairy alternative products in 13 countries worldwide…   Click Here
• Vegan cheese alternatives – closing the flavor gap: While many vegans are not overly concerned at finding products that resemble non-plant based foods, those experimenting with vegetarian, vegan or flexitarian lifestyles are often looking for plant-based foods similar to those they are cutting from their diet… Read
• Launch of Plant-Based Foods of Canada: Dairy giant Danone is one of several members of Canada’s plant-based food industry that has announced the formation of Plant-Based Foods of Canada (PBFA)… Read
• Riot Foods will bring new plant-based ‘dairy’ products to market in 2019: Riding the success wave of plant-based dairy alternatives, brands are looking to capitalize on consumer demand by developing more products. Riot Foods is launching to help fill that void… Read
• Veganism still growing despite dissatisfaction with food options: 90% of US vegetarians are considering veganism, even though half of US vegans are dissatisfied with their food choices. With less structured diets trending among young consumers, food brands need to innovate and expand their offerings, according to a study from Ingredient Communications… Read
• If goatmilk gets a pass, so should almondmilk, says nonprofit; NMPF counters: ‘A goat produces milk; a bean or seed does not’: If dairy farmers are OK with the lacteal secretions of goats, sheep, and buffalo being described as ‘milk,’ provided the word is prefaced with a modifier (goat’s milk, sheep milk), they should accept the same tactics from firms selling almond and soy milk, says one nonprofit health advocacy organization… Read
• ‘World Plant Milk Day’ celebrates second year: While the war of words over whether plant-based dairy alternatives can use the term ‘milk’ rages in the US, having already been banned in other areas, the ProVeg UK and Plant Based News creation World Plant Milk Day is being marked for the second time on August 22… Read
• Flexitarianism is no fad, meat and dairy sector warned: Social media sites like Instagram have fueled interest in veganism, according to a new report, but plant-based eating is not just a passing trend… Read
• More young, liberal Americans identify as vegan or vegetarian than any other group, little change from 2012: Only 5% of Americans identify as vegetarian and just 3% identify as vegan despite a much wider range of meat-free and dairy-free options on the market, a Gallup report finds… Read

What about plant-based meat?

• According to another industry newsletter, GlobalMeatNews.com, sales of plant-based meats are doing really well—up by 23% in the last year and worth close to $1 billion.
• Cultured meat cos agree to replace term ‘clean meat’ with ‘cell-based meat’ and form trade association:  As the debate over labeling conventions and regulatory frameworks intensifies in the burgeoning cell-cultured meat arena, a group of start-ups seeking to grow meat from cells without slaughtering animals has agreed to form an industry trade association and adopt the term ‘cell-based meat’ to describe their wares, FoodNavigator-USA understands… Read
• Hormones/antibiotic-free claims, followed by animal welfare, are the top consumer drivers for cell-based meat, says Mattson: New survey data from food development specialist Mattson suggests that the #1 thing consumers see as appealing about cell-based meat (grown from animal cells in a culture, without slaughter) is that it could “help reduce the amount of hormones and antibiotics we consume” (cited by 39% of respondents). Read more