t foods are typically made from the by-products of human food production.  These, like offals, are plenty nutritious; we just don’t happen to want to eat them.  Pet foods therefore, reduces food waste.

A reader and friend, Patricia Gadsby, sent me this note:

Never occurred to me to ask this question before. But when the idea occurred I thought of you. What percentage of greenhouse gases are attributable to pet food? I found this.

Here’s the article she refers to:

Pedrinelli, V., Teixeira, F.A., Queiroz, M.R. et al. Environmental impact of diets for dogs and cats. Sci Rep 12, 18510 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22631-0

The chief findings of this analysis of Brazilian pet foodss:

• Pet food has a high environmental impact.
• Wet diets have the highest.
• Dry diets have the least .
• The more animal protein, the higher the impact.
• The more calories, the greater the impact.

Like all environmental impact studies, this one depends on assumptions and tradeoffs.   The analysis does not consider the role of food waste., although the authors discuss this issue.

Several ingredients used in pet food are considered by-products, and this could be considered as a factor that reduces the impact of these foods…approximately 38% of beef, 20% of pork, and 19% of chicken is viscera or blood that is not used for human consumption31. Of all the by-products produced in Brazil, 12.8% are used in the pet food segment, and the rest is used for animal production, biodiesel, hygiene, and
cleaning, among other uses…In the present study, all types of diets contained by-products such as ofal or meat meals, although
dry and wet diets presented by-products more often than homemade diets.

I’m waiting for consensus on the assumptions.

In the meantime, two other items on pet food sustainability:

• Insect protein is a key solution to a sustainable pet food industry:  Government interest and funding are increasing for using insects to help meet climate goals.  .Read more

• Research reveals vegan diets can improve dog health: A study lead by Professor Andrew Knight at the University of Winchester in the UK found fewer cases of health disorders overall in dogs fed vegan diets. [Paid for by ProVeg International and conducted by authors linked to it and other animal welfare organizations—the full study is here].

Comment

Thanks to Phyllis Entis, author of TAINTED. From Farm Gate to Dinner Plate, Fifty Years of Food Safety Failures and TOXIC. From Factory to Food Bowl, Pet Food Is a Risky Business for the vegan diet item.  Vegan diets may be more environmentally sustainable, but are they best for a dog or cat’s health?  That question involves assumptions and tradeoffs about health and environmental impact.

The health impact would be easier to address if researchers were studying such questions.  But, as I discussed in my co-authored book about pet food issues, Feed Your Pet Right, remarkably little research is being done on dog and cat diets.  I think there are three reasons for the lack of research:

1. Pet owners do not approve of experimentation on companion animals.
2. The government does not want to bother to invest in research on pet food.
3. No pet food company wants to pay for diet studies that might not help sell pet food.

Personally, I would like to see studies examining the effects of high- and low-end commercial foods on health and sustainability.  Without them, we are left with assumptions and tradeoffs, and personal beliefs about what’s best for our beloved animals.

Two items about pet food this week.  Today: safety.  Tomorrow: environmental sustainability.

I have a long-standing interest in pet food, which I view as an integral—essential—component of our overall food system , not least because pet food uses food components that would otherwise be wasted.  I co-authored a book about pet food issues: Feed Your Pet Right.

If there are problems with the safety of pet food, you can bet those problems will occur in the food supply for humans.  I wrote a book about that too: Pet Food Politics: The Canary in the Coal Mine.

I am not the only one interested in such topics.  Phyllis Entis has written two books crticizing the safety hazards of pet foods.

• TAINTED. From Farm Gate to Dinner Plate, Fifty Years of Food Safety Failures 
• TOXIC. From Factory to Food Bowl, Pet Food Is a Risky Business

She keeps me up-to-date on the latest problems that arise.

I don’t know how closely you’re watching the pet food industry these days, but I thought this piece I just posted might interest you: When ‘truths’ collide: Darwin’s, ANSWERS, and the FDA

This was an account of an FDA Advisory and its non-consequences: Do Not Feed Certain Lots of Darwin’s Natural Selections Pet Food Due to Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is cautioning pet owners that FDA samples of five Darwin’s Natural Pet Products raw cat and dog food made by Arrow Reliance, Inc. tested positive for Salmonella and a sixth FDA sample tested positive for Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes (L. mono)…If you have any of the Darwin’s Natural Selections pet food product listed above, stop feeding the product to your pets and throw it away in a secure container where other animals, including wildlife, cannot access it. Do not donate the food.

The bigger story here, as Phillis Entis explains, is that the FDA did not force the company to recall the products; it asked Darwin to rissue a recall volunarily.

But in this case, the company resisted.  It voluntarily decided not to do the recall.  Pet Food Industry (an essential source of information) tells this story.

In a September 20, 2024, memo from the company to consumers which was sent to Petfood Industry, Darwin’s Natural Pet Products had this to say given the FDA’s public notice regarding the affected lots of cat and dog food.

The memo is worth a look.  It says things like this:

• At Darwin’s, the health and safety of your pets is our absolute top priority, and we take rigorous steps to support their well-being and to foster strong lines of communication with you and our fellow community members.
• It is also very important to know that the FDA has received no consumer complaints regarding any of these lots.
• We find the FDA’s public notice to be wholly unnecessary, and ultimately, based on flawed regulatory decision-making, and we have taken steps to make this position clear to the agency.

Oh.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler asks: Will the FDA use its Recall Authority to Mandate a Pet Food Recall due to Salmonella and Listeria?   .The FDA has that authority.  It did not use it.

That leaves you on your own to make sure you do not buy Darwin products for your pet.

The FDA provides plenty of information as a basis for you taking responsibility for such things.

Its advisory asks this question: Why is the FDA concerned about Salmonella and L. mono in pet food?

Pet foods contaminated with Salmonella and L. mono are of particular public health importance because they can affect both human and animal health. Pets can get sick from Salmonella and may also be carriers of the bacteria and pass it on to their human companions without appearing to be ill…The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled. Refrigeration or freezing does not kill Salmonella or L. mono.

It provides  these resources:

• Get the Facts about Salmonella
• Salmonella (Salmonellosis)
• Get the Facts about Listeria
• Listeria (Listeriosis)

Do we need more forceful regulation of pet food?  Of course we do.

What started all this was this graph of obesity prevalence in the US from the Financial Times:

The most complete account of what happened next comes from Helena Bottemiller Evich in Food Fix (a must-read for anyone interested in following the food scene): “Have we passed peak obesity? New data sparks speculation.”

The Financial Times was the first to pick up on new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that the obesity rate for U.S. adults declined two percentage points between 2020 and 2023. The headline from across the pond was upbeat: “We may have passed peak obesity.” Soon, a couple of other news outlets followed, including Axios: “Americans are getting healthier by some key metrics.” The Washington Post editorial board jumped into the fray this week as well: “The obesity rate might have stopped growing. Here’s what could be working.”

The original data came from the CDC:

Plotted this way, the decline is not nearly so impressive (and severe obesity is increasing slightly).

As for the effect of the drugs, it’s much too early to say, says the epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias posting on Twitter (X).

The downtick occurred before the drugs were widely used.  Following her thread produces lots more data on that point.

We will have to wait a few more years to know how all this will play out.  I can’t wait!

Honey has an industry behind it?  Of course it does.

The National Honey Board (a USDA-sponsored checkoff entity) is working hard to convince dietitians that honey is a health food.  Here are three examples sent to me by members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, who received these ads via e-mail.

I.  “Harness the power of honey in the Mediterranean diet this summer…Incorporating honey into the MSDP [Mediterranean-style dietary pattern] is a natural fit.”

Download Our Med Diet Handout

View Our Med Diet Research Summary

Get Inspired With Med Diet Recipes

II.  Another reader, Katherine Walcott, sent me this one about how honey can boost probiotics.  She points out that the ad links to an article in health.com and then to studies one and two , both supported by the National Honey Board.

III.  Yet another dietitian sent me yet another ad, this one featuring dietitians extolling the benefits of honey as part of nutritious diets.

RD: Honey offers antioxidants, heart health and more

Honey may offers numerous healthful benefits: it is rich in antioxidants like flavonoids and phenolic acids, which help neutralize reactive oxygen species, potentially reducing the risk of conditions like premature aging, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, writes registered dietitian nutritionist SaVanna Shoemaker. Honey may aid in blood sugar management by increasing adiponectin levels, though it should be consumed in moderation, especially by people with diabetes. Studies suggest honey can improve heart health by lowering blood pressure and improving blood fat levels. It also has antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, making it effective for treating burns, wounds and coughs in children over 1 year old, however honey should never be given to children under 1 year of age.

Comment

I need to point out the obvious: honey is a form of sugar.  It is a mix of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and traces of other sugars, minerals, and flavors.  Its main benefits?  It is delicious, but most people are unlikely to eat much of it, and not nearly as much as they might eat of sucrose table sugar.  Can it be part of nutritious diets?  Of course it can.  A health food?  Depends on how much you eat of it.

Also obvious: the purpose of the National Honey Board is to convince you to eat more honey.

III.  Personalized, as opposed to Public Health, Nutrition

Stephanie Rogus, a former doctoral studentt in my NYU department, and Peter Lurie, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have a new paper out: Personalized nutrition: aligning science, regulation, and marketing. Health Affairs Scholar, Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2024, qxae107, https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae107

Proponents of personalized nutrition assert that population-based approaches to dietary recommendations have had limited impact because they have failed to take interindividual differences into account. Proponents argue that increasing or reducing consumption of particular foods in response to the results of a survey or diagnostic test allows for the development of more personalized and, it is argued, more effective recommendations.

Their paper does not deal with the flaws in individualized approached to nutritional health—“precision” nutrition: the cost, the difficulty, the lack of support, the inability to reach those who most need support, etc.  Instead, it focuses on the commercialization of personalized nutrition:

regulatory gaps have led to market growth of products with unknown efficacy that are making bold, and possibly unsubstantiated, claims. As personalized nutrition products and related treatments continue to enter the market without regulation, unreliable products may cause consumers financial, psychological, and physical harm. Stronger regulation will help engender trust in these products among consumers and ensure their safety and effectiveness.

Hard to argue with that.  Glad they wrote it.

II.  The need for nutrition science leadership in promoting policies to prevent and treat disease

Three-quarters of American adults are overweight or obese and at increased chronic disease risk, yet nobody is screaming much about it (except for the MAHA people).

As the Government Accountability Office put it in 2021,  “federal strategy needed to coordinate diet-related efforts.”

Chronic health conditions (like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity) are costly and deadly—causing over half of U.S. deaths in 2018. They also exacerbated the pandemic: Americans with such conditions were 12 times more likely to die after contracting COVID, according to the CDC.

Yet chronic conditions are largely preventable with a healthy diet and other behaviors like exercise. The federal government leads 200 different efforts, spread across 21 agencies, to improve Americans’ diets. But agency efforts are fragmented and there are gaps in key scientific research, including for children. A strategy for working together could help.

In its recommendations, the GAO says:

Congress should consider identifying and directing a federal entity to lead development and implementation of a federal strategy for diet-related efforts aimed at reducing Americans’ risk of chronic health conditions.

The GAO comments:

The White House sponsored a conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health on September 28, 2022. In advance of that event, the White House released a national strategy aimed at ending hunger in America and increasing healthy eating and physical activity by 2030. [Note: I wrote about these events extensively.  For example, here]

However, we do not believe the White House strategy satisfies our matter because it does not contain the necessary information about outcomes and accountability, resources, and leadership. In particular, without designated leadership, it may be difficult to sustain the strategy over time. Therefore, as of March 2024, the matter remains open.

In October 2024, it still remains open.  I see this as an urgent priority.

Tomorrow: Personalized nutrition

Some comments on three recent developments in the field of nurition.

I.  Nutrition in medical education

I’ve been teaching , researching, and writing about nutrition since 1976 when I was on the faculty at Brandeis and assigned my first class.  I then went to the USCF School of Medicine where I taught nutrition to health professions student for the next ten years.

While there, I wrote my first book, Nutrition in Clinical Practice, in which I briefly summarized what all of us at the time thought medical students needed to know.  The book was published in 1985, and is long out of print.  In 2020, a used copy was available on Amazon for $930 (even more surprising, it is no longer on that site).

Consequently, I was amazed to see: Eisenberg DM, Cole A, Maile EJ, et al. Proposed Nutrition Competencies for Medical Students and Physician Trainees: A Consensus Statement. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(9):e2435425. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.35425

As one of the authors , Emily Broad Leib, wrote in a Tweet (X), “This article shares the consensus of 37 medical education leaders on what all physicians-in-training should know about nutrition. With this start, I hope we can achieve a future where all drs. are armed with this knowledge!”

Well, wouldn’t that be nice.  When I arrived at UCSF in 1976, it was already nearly 20 years since the first conference on nutrition in medical education called for more nutrition instruction.  It has now been 70 years since then, with little change.

The structural barriers are insurmountable, apparently.

• The focus on treatment, not prevention
• Lack of qualified instructors
• Time in the curriculum
• Time in office visits (anyone seen a doctor lately for more than 15 minutes)
• The complexity of the field

Still, let’s hear applause for this consensus effort, starting with recommendation #1:

Provides evidence-based, culturally sensitive nutrition and food recommendations to patients for the prevention and treatment of disease.

Tomorrow: The need for leadership on precisely that point.

Our hopelessly dysfunctional Congress did not pass a new Farm Bill in 2023, but granted a one-year extension to the 2018 bill.  It has since been unable to pass a new one.  The old one expired on October 1.

So what?   For explanations, see:

• Market Intel:  Here’s What Happens When the Farm Bill Expires.
• Congressional Research Service: Expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill and Extension for 2024.

The Farm Bill is a collection of a huge number of programs, each with its own funding authority and rules. (and lobbyists).

Its termination affects some programs , others not so much.

Market Intel lists programs shut down on October 1.

• International programs, such as the Market Access and Foreign Market Development Cooperator trade promotion programs and Food for Progress
• The Biobased Markets Program and Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
• Several  animal health programs
• Programs for socially disadvantaged, veteran, young and beginning farmers
• The Specialty Crops Block Grants program
• The National Organic Certification Cost-Share program

Programs with permanent funding can pretty much continue.  These include:

• Crop insurance
• SNAP
• Some disaster programs
• Some commodity support programs

The big problem is with dairy and a few other commodity support programs.  I know this seems unbelievable, but as of January 1, 2025, they revert back to “permanent law,” which means the 1938 and 1949 farm billls (!).

I have no idea why, but the permanent law makes the government pay a lot more for milk, honey, corn, and wheat than current support prices.

For example, the price for milk per hundredweight.

• July 2024: $22.80
• Parity: $65.90
• Permanent (75% of parity): $49.43

Market Intel says:

Purchasing cheese, butter and nonfat dry milk at multiples of the market price would be severely disruptive to markets, would badly distort pricing under the federal milk marketing order system and would undermine demand at home and abroad in return for very uneven benefits to farmers over a limited time. And the release of USDA stocks when permanent law is suspended again would depress markets for months.

Weird, no?

As I am on record as saying, the farm bill drives me insane.