Search results: natural

My Sunday (September 20) column in the San Francisco Chronicle deals with the sugar “crisis” I discussed here a few weeks ago:

Q: I saw you on “The Colbert Report” (Aug. 19) talking about sugar policy. Explain, please. I don’t understand why sugar policy is a topic for Comedy Central.

A: Neither did I until I saw Stephen Colbert douse himself with 5 pounds of sugar over the impending “crisis.” We have a sugar crisis? According to processed food manufacturers, we are about to run out of sugar. Horrors!

Earlier in August, Kraft and other food processors asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to raise the quota on sugar imports. Sugar availability, they complained, is the lowest in years and it’s the USDA’s fault.

The USDA firmly controls amounts of sugar (sucrose) produced by American cane and beet growers through quotas. It even more firmly controls sugar imported from other sugar-growing countries through quotas and tariffs. And as corn is increasingly diverted to biofuels, less high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is around to make up the shortfall.

Should we worry?

The shortage is no crisis. At worst, it is temporary and will end as soon as the 2009 harvest is in. But processed food makers are right about one thing: Sugar is the most absurdly protected agricultural commodity in America.

For decades, no matter what it cost on the world market, quotas and tariffs ensured that Americans paid two or three times as much for sugar. High sugar prices cost American consumers about $3 billion a year. But because this works out “only” to about $10 per year per capita, nobody much cared.

If you think of $10 as trivial, you won’t give sugar protectionism another thought. But if you look at this system as an unnecessary transfer of $3 billion a year from 350 million Americans to a few thousand sugar growers and processors, you can understand why sugar policy is ripe for satire.

Here’s how the system works:

Quotas allow U.S. producers to grow only specified amounts of sugar cane and sugar beets each year, for which the USDA guarantees a higher-than-market price. Beets get 55 percent of the quota; cane gets 45 percent. The quotas are fixed. If you want to grow sugar beets in your backyard and sell the sugar to USDA at the favorable support price, too bad for you. You only get a quota if you already have a quota.

As for tariffs, the 2008 Farm Bill requires 85 percent of total sugar in the United States to be produced domestically, and allows only 15 percent to be imported. That 15 percent is distributed through quotas awarded to about 20 countries.

Above and beyond the quotas, imported sugar is subject to high tariffs. Mexico is an exception. Under NAFTA, Mexico gets to sell us as much sugar as it wants at the favored price. However, few countries in Africa hold quotas. What if you are an African cane-growing country and want the high quota price for your sugar? Not a chance.

Imports are never supposed to top 15 percent, so the USDA can’t increase the percentage. But we participate in the World Trade Organization, which obligates us to take world market sugar. Oops. These policies don’t match. Processed food makers must think the contradictions will allow the USDA to let in more sugar. Maybe, but the legalities are not yet decided.

Mind you, sugar producers and processors love this system. They argue that it keeps jobs in rural America and eliminates dependence on foreign sugar imports. To make sure nobody scrutinizes the system too carefully, they formed cooperatives to avoid antitrust laws.

Sugar producers are among the most generous and equal-opportunity contributors to congressional election campaigns, giving to both Democrats and Republicans. For decades, administrations of both parties have tried to end sugar supports. No such luck.

A shift’s brewing

Policies may change, because the gap between the prices for domestic and world market sugar – and for high fructose corn syrup – has narrowed recently. Sugar is now at war with HFCS. As HFCS is increasingly known as a key junk food ingredient, manufacturers are rushing to replace it with sucrose, which they can tout as “natural and unprocessed.”

Other sugar issues are also ripe for comedy. Most sugar beets are now genetically modified, leading many companies to avoid using beet sugar. In the South, sugar cane production pollutes the Everglades, which is costing billions of dollars to clean up. Investigative reporters are riveted by the feudalistic labor practices of sugar plantations.

And then there’s Cuba. Until the Castro revolution, that’s where we got most of our imported sugar. When relations improve, will Cuba get a sugar quota?

If sugar is responsible for any true crisis, it is because of its role as an ingredient in processed foods. Cheap sugar reduces the cost of candy and soft drinks. Cheap junk foods are highly profitable. Otherwise, our sugar policies make no sense in today’s global marketplace.

But we would be healthier eating less sugar, anyway. So here’s my solution to the non-crisis: Eat less sugar!

This book has its own Facebook Page (Feed Your Pet Right) on which Mal Nesheim and I deal with current issues about pet food, answer questions, and respond to comments.

Order from your local independent bookstore or Free Press/Simon and Schuster or Amazon or Borders or Barnes & Noble or IndieBound.

Media Interviews and book reviews [scroll all the way down to read review examples]

September/October 2010 Review in The Bark magazine

September 2010 Pet Food Industry review by Packaged Facts

August 18, 2010 Jill Richardson reviews the book on AlterNet

August 18, 2010 Jill Richardson blogs about the book

July 28, 2010 Interview with Amy Lieberman on Zootoo.com

July 17, 2010 Radio interview with Evan Kleinman on Good Food

June 28, 2010 Podcast interview with Tracie Hotchner’s “Authors on Animals”June 25, 2010 DailyAdvance.com review by Vicky Hagmeister.

June 23, 2010 San Francisco Chronicle Q and A with Meridith May.  Great photos!

June 10, 2010 Corby Kummer comments on the book on the Atlantic Food Channel.

June 8, 2010 Christie Keith’s review for the San Francisco Chronicle online

June 5, 2010 The San Francisco Chronicle online Tails of the City reviews the book

June 1, 2010 Jane Brody writes about the book in her Personal Health column

May 22, 2010 Live blogging from Omnivore Books on PetConnection by Christie Keith

May 20, 2010 Interview with Joyce Slayton on Chow.com

May 14, 2010 Good Morning America with JuJu Chang

May 13, 2010 Interview with Kerry Trueman, Eating Liberally, Mudroom

May 13, 2010 Brian Lehrer NPR radio

May 13, 2010 St Louis Post-Dispatch review

May 12, 2010: Diane Rehm Show , NPR radio

May 11, 2010: Time.com Q and A (print)

Summary

Feed Your Pet Right is an entertaining and informative examination of the booming pet food industry—its history, constituent companies, products, and marketing practices—written by two experts who took an objective look at the science behind pet food industry practices and claims. The book should be of interest to anyone who cares about how businesses function in today’s market economy but it especially aims to give pet owners the facts they need to decide for themselves how best to feed their cats or dogs.

The result of extensive research by experts in animal and human nutrition, the book covers the range of pet food products available, analyzes the ingredients in those products, reveals how and why pet food labels look the way they do, and explains how to read and decode the information and health claims on those labels. With this information, pet owners can better evaluate the quality and safety of what they are buying for their cats and dogs.

The authors make no attempt to dictate how pet owners should feed their cats and dogs. Instead, Feed Your Pet Right provides a roadmap to providing healthful diets for cats and dogs in ways that fit the great range of pet owners’ personal beliefs, value systems, and lifestyle choices.

The book also explains how pet foods are and are not regulated, how pet food companies influence government oversight and veterinary training and research, and how ethical considerations affect pet food research and product development. The book concludes with specific recommendations not only for pet owners, but also for the pet food industry, government regulators, and veterinarians.

Co-author: Dr. Malden Nesheim:

Malden Nesheim was born in Rochelle, Illinois. He earned a BS degree in Agricultural Science (1953) and an MS degree in Animal Nutrition (1954) from the University of Illinois and the Ph.D. degree in Nutrition (1959) from Cornell University.

Nesheim joined the Cornell faculty in 1959. In 1974 he was named Professor of Nutrition and Director of the newly formed Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell, a post which he held until the summer of 1987 when he was appointed Vice President for Planning and Budgeting. In 1989 he was appointed Provost of Cornell University. In that position, he was the chief academic officer of Cornell University responsible for oversight of all programs on the Ithaca campus. In 1995, he was named Provost Emeritus and became professor of Nutrition Emeritus in 1997.

Nesheim received the American Institute of Nutrition’s Conrad A. Elvehjem Award for public service, was elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Fellow of the American Society of Nutritional Sciences. He has served as President of the American Institute of Nutrition and on several review panels for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Agriculture. He chaired the NIH Nutrition Study Section from 1983-1986, and was a member of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine for nine years. He chaired the 1990 joint USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. In 1995 he was appointed Chair of a Presidential Commission on Dietary Supplement Labels. He finished his term as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Pan American Health and Education Foundation in 2008.

How we came to write this book:

The idea for this book originated as an extension of Marion Nestle’s book, What to Eat, which addressed common questions about human food choices using supermarkets as an organizing principle. The book did not cover the pet food aisle, which in most supermarkets is extensive and loaded with products whose labels differ greatly from those on foods for humans and are indecipherable to most people. We were curious to know what those products were and what their labels meant. What to Eat is a guide to how to think about human food choices. Feed Your Pet Right is a guide to how to think about food choices for cats and dogs.

Early comments

From Dr. David Fraser, former dean of the Veterinary College at the University of Sydney:

I have at last finished reading the manuscript of your book…Your book is mind blowingly excellent!! It is brilliant in every way. It is comprehensive in scope. It is so clearly impartial – free of any hidden influence on the writers. The style of writing is extremely attractive and should make this book accessible to any reader regardless of their knowledge level…The book of course is written for the USA. Nevertheless, I shall be recommending that my veterinary students read it…I am amazed at the range of issues that you covered. Together they give the most complete understanding of commercial pet foods that could possibly be created…your recommendations and criticisms are all highly relevant to the Australian situation.

Reviews in print

Library Journal, April 1, 2010:

Nestle, Marion & Malden C. Nesheim. Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. Free Pr: S. & S. May 2010. c.320p. illus. index. ISBN 978-1-4391-6642-0. pap. $18. PETS

Dog and cat owners encounter a dizzying array of choices and confusing labels when shopping for pet foods in supermarkets. They will welcome the information Nestle (nutrition, New York Univ.; Pet Food Politics) and Nesheim (nutrition, emeritus, Cornell Univ.) obtained from their research and firsthand experience. Readers learn what pets are supposed to eat (dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores) and the scientific standards and government regulations that led to the development of commercial pet food. Owners are guided through the many food choices, including dry, canned, wet, and semimoist foods; products called “premium,” “all natural,” “prescription diet,” and “hairball control”; and more unconventional diets, like raw, vegetarian, and home cooked. After discussing various foods and nutrients, they conclude with specific and sensible recommendations for pet owners, the industry, and the government. VERDICT Filled with useful information, this well-written guide is the pet nutrition counterpart to Nestle’s human nutrition guide, What To Eat. Recommended for all pet owners.—Eva Lautemann, Georgia Perimeter Coll. Lib., Clarkston

Tulsa World, May 9, 2010

Surprising bits about kibble, by Kim Brown, World Scene Writer

We’re a culture obsessed with food, so why not be that way about pet food?

The answer is what authors Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim search for in their new book, “Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat,” (Simon & Schuster, $16.99).

From breaking down pet food labels to detailing the many nutrition plans for your dog or cat, the authors dig deep into the $40 billion a year pet industry and learn that there are no definitive answers.

But they first take us through history to learn what our domestic animals used to eat, and how it compares with the foods we feed them today.

Not only do they tackle the commercial pet food industry, but the authors also look inside the natural and organic product claims on some specialty, or more expensive, pet food products.

Some of Nestle and Nesheim’s research surprised them, particularly that they found was no single diet to be superior.

“The books that are out there tend to cite every bit of research or experience they can muster to argue that you must feed your pet only one kind of diet — only commercial pet food, only one or another alternative pet food, only meat, only grains and vegetables, only raw foods, or only home-cooked foods. Humans don’t eat only one way. Pets don’t need to either. Any or all of those methods, singly or together, can promote excellent health in a dog or cat,” they write.

In fact, they find that commercial pet food is “adequate and appropriate” for many pets.

“We found no evidence that these foods routinely cause nutrient deficiencies or other health problems or shorten pets’ lives ” they write.

However, they also lament that there is no “real research” to tell if pets are living longer lives now than before.

Cape Cod Times, May 9, 2010, Bookshelf, by Melanie Lauwers

One of the hottest topics going is how we feed ourselves in the modern world — where our food comes from, how it’s processed and whether we get the best possible nutrition from our diet. But what about our pets? We spend millions of dollars each year on wet and dry food, treats and supplements, and truthfully, how much do we know about those products? And how do we know they’re right for our pets?

Expert nutritionist Marion Nestle of New York University and Cornell University professor emeritus Malden Nesheim explain what pets used to eat, what they eat now and what they actually need in their diet to stay healthy and happy. Included are analyses of pet food products and recommendations for owners, the pet food industry and regulators. There’s more than plain old kibble in this pet food encyclopedia.

At last, the American Heart Association (AHA) has done something useful.  It advises eating less sugar.  Americans eat way too much, it says, a whopping 22 teaspoons a day on average.  Let’s work this out.  A teaspoon is 4 grams.  A gram is 4 calories.  So the 275 calories in that default 20-ounce soda you picked up from a vending machine come from nearly 17 teaspoons of sugar – close to the average right there.  If you have trouble maintaining weight, soft drinks are an obvious candidate for “eat less” advice.  Neither the Wall Street Journal (in which I am quoted) nor the New York Times say much about how soft drink manufacturers are reacting to this recommendation, but it isn’t hard to guess.

Here, for example, is what the industry-sponsored American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has to say:

The study targets added sugars as the main culprit of dietary excess, but since “U.S. labels on packaged foods do not distinguish between naturally occurring or added sugars,” it is difficult to tell the difference. However, “our bodies can’t tell the difference either,” says ACSH’s Jeff Stier. “Natural and added sugars are nutritionally the same. Added sugar causes obesity as much as the orange juice promoted by the American Heart Association causes obesity [e-mail newsletter, August 25, 2009].

This is the first time the AHA has seriously weighed in on sugar.  I find this especially interesting because the AHA has a long history of endorsing sugary cereals (as I discuss in Food Politics and also in What to Eat).  In this example, the AHA’s endorsement is in the lower left corner.  This product has sugars of one kind or another listed 9 times in the ingredient list.

The AHA gets paid for such endorsements.  Let’s hope the new recommendation encourages the AHA to stop doing this.

Update August 27: I really don’t know what to say about the ACSH’s Jeff Stier.  he is acting more like the Center for Consumer Freedom’s Rick Berman every day.   Today’s e-mail newsletter from ACSH contains this statement:

In her blog in The Atlantic, NYU Professor of Nutrition Dr. Marion Nestle has fallen into the habit of suggesting that ACSH is incapable of objective analysis of public health concerns because we are, in her distorted view, “thoroughly industry-sponsored.”

ACSH’s Jeff Stier wrote to her editors: “Like many of the country’s top non-profits, Dr. Nestle’s NYU included, we accept corporate donations, with no strings attached. But we also receive significant support from individuals and foundations. Her misleading description of us suggests that we represent industry. We do not. We are advised by some of the nation’s leading scientists and represent consumers.

“By way of this email, I ask for a conspicuous and fair correction. We are happy to engage on the issues Dr. Nestle writes about, but her attacks on us are below someone of her stature. We’d prefer an informed and enlightening discussion of the issues, not underhanded and unfounded attacks on credibility.”

“Apparently, Dr. Nestle believes that your opinions are irrelevant, since they diverge from her ideological agenda,” says Stier. “We represent you, consumers, who want science rather than ideology informing public health decisionmaking. Does she really think that consumers are so monolithic that they either agree with her or are put up to it by some sinister entity?”

Readers: Does anyone know what is going on with this group?  It sounds so much like the Center for Consumer Freedom that I can’t help but wonder.

I’m in London and today’s tabloid Daily Express has a headline in type two inches high: “ORGANIC FOOD NO HEALTHIER.”  The article begins, “Eating organic food in the belief that it is good for your health is a waste of money, new research shows.”

Really?  This surprising statement is based on the conclusions of a lengthy report just released from the British Food Standards Agency, Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature.  This report, done by excellent researchers at the prestigious London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, looked at the results of 162 studies comparing organic to conventionally grown foods for their content of nutrients and other substances.  Although it found higher amounts of some nutrients in organic crops, it found higher amounts of others in conventional crops, and no difference in others.  On this basis, the report concludes:

There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.

In a statement accompanying release of the report, the Food Standards Agency says:

The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food. We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence.

Fine, but do animal welfare and environmental concerns not matter?  The authors of the report summarize their findings in a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The paper concludes:

On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

Oh?  I thought that’s what organic foods were about – production methods: no antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge.  I thought better production methods were the precise point of organic foods.

But these authors did not compare amounts of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, irradiation, genetic modification, or sewage sludge.  They did not look at any of those things.  They only looked at nutrients.  This is an example of nutritionism in action: looking at foods as if their nutrient content is all that matters – not production methods, not effects on the environment, and not even taste.

I’m surprised that investigators of this caliber would focus so narrowly on nutrient content.  There is no reason to think that organic foods would have fewer nutrients than industrially produced foods, and there are many reasons to think that organics have greater benefits for the environment, for pesticide reduction, and for taste, all of which affect human health at least as much — or more — than minor differences in nutritional content.   I buy organics because I want foods to be produced more naturally, more humanely, and more sustainably.  I see plenty of good reasons to buy organics and this study does not even begin to address them.

[Posted from London]

Thanks to Bill Marler for discussing this question on his blog this morning and for suggesting starting with the ingredient list.  As a typical example, here is the ingredient list for Nestlé’s Chocolate Chunk cookie dough (others can be found at this site):

INGREDIENTS: BLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMIN MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, NESTLE SEMI-SWEET CHOCOLATE CHUNKS (SEMI-SWEET CHOCOLATE [SUGAR, CHOCOLATE, COCOA BUTTER, MILKFAT, SOY LECITHIN, VANILLIN – AN ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, NATURAL FLAVOR]), MARGARINE (PALM OIL, WATER, SUNFLOWER OIL, HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, SALT, VEGETABLE MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, SOY LECITHIN, SODIUM BENZOATE, CITRIC ACID, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, BETA CAROTENE COLOR, VITAMIN A PALMITATE ADDED), WATER, CORN SYRUP SOLIDS, MOLASSES, EGGS, EGG YOLKS, BAKING SODA, SALT, CORNSTARCH, SODIUM ALUMINUM PHOSPHATE, VANILLA EXTRACT, VANILLIN – AN ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR

MADE ON EQUIPMENT THAT ALSO PROCESSES PEANUTS/NUTS

CONTAINS: MILK, EGG, SOY, WHEAT INGREDIENTS

For starters, we don’t really know yet whether raw cookie dough is the source of this E. coli outbreak.  It could be something else, and Nestlé will have recalled 300,000 cases purely out of precaution.  The most likely source of bacterial contamination is eggs, but eggs typically carry Salmonella, not E. coli O157:H7.   And besides, the eggs in raw cookie dough are undoubtedly pasteurized, which ought to kill any bacteria that happen to be present.

The usual source of this toxic form of E. coli is cow manure.  Cows that carry this bug do not necessarily become ill, but they excrete it. Recall the spinach E. coli outbreak in 2006?  The spinach field was one mile away from a cattle crossing over a stream.  California investigators identified the particular strain of E. coli that caused the problem in cattle, cattle feces, and water at the cattle crossing, but did not found it in the field.

All they could do is speculate. Their leading hypotheses were runoff, a change in the water table, and (my favorite) wild boar.  Unfortunately for this last theory, when they surveyed wild boar for E. coli O157:H7, they found fewer than 0.5% to carry it.  So how E. coli got into the spinach remains a mystery.

As for the cookie dough, I’m guessing that everyone involved is having a busy weekend testing the ingredients, the packing plants, and everything else they can think of.  Let’s hope they find the source right away.

For days now, my e-mail inbox has been flooded with messages about the flap at Washington State University over Michael Pollan’s Ominivore’s Dilemma. The messages come from Bill Marler, the Seattle-based “food poisoning attorney” and blogger whose firm specializes in class action lawsuits on behalf of victims of foodborne illness.

This is a good story.  The university bought copies of Omnivore’s Dilemma to distribute to the freshman class (a common community-building exercise at universities these days).  Then, it decided not to give them out.  Could corporate pressure from Washington State agribusiness have had anything to with this decision? No, said the university; they just couldn’t afford to bring Pollan to the campus.

Marler called their bluff.  If it’s really about money, he said, he’d pony up.   The result: the event is back on.

But I’m curious.  Does it really cost $40,000 to get Pollan to travel from Berkeley to WSU?  Pollan says no.  I just hope Marler gets to keep the change and use it to help sick kids.

According to Time online, advertising for the sports drink Red Bull Cola made officials in Germany so suspicious that they did a little testing.  Ach du himmel!  Traces of cocaine.  No wonder guys like it so much.

Here is the ingredient list: Water, Sugar, Carbon Dioxide, Caramel Color, Natural Flavors from Plant Extracts (Galangal, Vanilla, Mustard Seed, Lime, Kola Nut, Cacao, Licorice, Cinnamon, Lemon, Ginger, Cocoa Leaf, Orange, Corn Mint, Pine, Cardamom, Mace, Clove), Lemon Juice Concentrate, Caffeine from Coffee Beans.  With these, you get 130 calories, virtually all from sugar, and some unstated amount of caffeine – along with some other no longer quite so secret ingredients, apparently.

Yum.

Update June 5: European regulatory authorities think this is a non-issue and plan no action.

When it comes to food, defining “healthy” is a major preoccupation of food companies these days.  Marketers are falling all over each other trying to label food products with numbers or symbols to convince you that their products are better-for-you choices.  These, as I keep saying (see posts under “Scoring systems”), are about marketing, not health.

Now, the Strategic Alliance, the component of the Oakland-based Prevention Institute devoted to “promoting healthy food and activity environments,” has produced a working definition of a healthful food.  Its report, Setting the Record Straight: Nutritionists Define Healthful Food, applies three principles:  Healthful food should be (1) wholesome, (2) produced in ways that are good for people, animals, and natural resources, and (3) available, accessible, and affordable.

This is a food system definition that makes scoring systems unnecessary.  “Wholesome,” says this document, means foods that are minimally processed, full of naturally occurring nutrients, produced without added hormones or antibiotics, and processed without artificial colors, flavors, or unnecessary preservatives.

I wonder how many of those highly processed products in supermarket center aisles can meet this definition?