Aug
10
2023
A taste of summer: melons
Every now and then the USDA recruits a talented designer and produces terrific charts like this one.
I thought this was perfect for a hot summer day. Enjoy!
by Marion Nestle
Aug
9
2023
On Netflix now: Poisoned
Poisoned, the food safety film featuring the lawyer, Bill Marler, is now available to watch on Netflix.
I wrote about earlier when I saw it at the Tribeca Film Festival.
It’s totally worth watching, and not only because I have a cameo in it.
Bill Marler explains why. I reproduce his post with permission.
After Netflix Poisoned – What would I do with a Food Safety Magic Wand?
Over two months ago, while watching the premiere of the documentary, “Poisoned,” at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC, I got thinking again about how little in the past 30 years I feel I have moved the needle on food safety – pathogens and certainly, human nutrition. Now that “Poisoned” is up on the Netflix platform, it has become the most watched documentary in the world – at least for the last few days.
The real issues to me is how do we engage the food industry, policy makers, academics and most importantly consumers, to focus on driving the numbers down on the pathogens that kill us quickly and the products that kill us over time?
I will focus on pathogens as I have for the last 30 plus years. I will leave it to some very smart people who are rightly concerned about the millions of us who become sick and die due to inadequate nutrition – especially the millions of illnesses and deaths due to heart disease, diabetes and obesity caused by ultra-processed foods, salt, sugar, and fat.
There is so much to do, and the list is long. So, what would I do with a Food Safety Magic Wand on day one?
- Vaccinate. The first thing I would do is mandate that all food service workers be vaccinated against hepatitis A. Perhaps to some, not the most pressing food safety issue, but it is forefront of my mind. In the past few months, I finished up litigation around a hepatitis A outbreak involving one ill food service work who infected nearly 50 people, hospitalizing most, killing four and causing two liver transplants. With regret, I forced a family-owned restaurant chain to file for bankruptcy. All of this could have been prevented by a safe vaccine that has been around for decades. It is time for the restaurant industry and the CDC to step up.
- Investigate. Invest in public health surveillance over human pathogens, like, Listeria, E. coli and Salmonella, etc. A dirty truth is that most culture-confirmed illnesses are never attributable to a food source, so people never know what sickened or killed them. Not because the source was not food, but because we fail to invest adequate resources in the epidemiologists that investigate illnesses and track those illnesses to the cause. Tracking illnesses to the cause gets tainted product off the market and helps us all understand what products and producers to avoid. We need to continue to invest in the science of whole genome sequencing, so we know with certainty which pathogens are causing which illnesses. Foodborne illness epidemiology helps us understand the root cause of an outbreak and helps prevent the next one from happening at all.
- Relegate. Allow public health officials access, especially during an outbreak investigation, to all areas around farms that grow fruits and vegetables. It is long past time to allow investigators access to neighboring cattle, dairy, chicken, or hog operations that spill billions of deadly pathogens into the environment, via air or water. We need to think of our growing regions as an integrated system and that all sectors responsible need to play a role. Access allows investigators to understand the likely cause of an outbreak, and again, what can be done to prevent the next one.
- Advocate. Make all pathogens that can sicken or kill us adulterants. In 1994 Mike Taylor making E. coliO157:H7 and adulterant has saved countless lives and has saved the beef industry from my lawsuits. We can do the same for all food producers, especially chicken, turkey, and pork. Remember, in the 1990’s nearly all the lawsuits I filed were E. coli cases linked to ground beef. Today that is zero. Think about it.
- Educate. Give everyone a thermometer and provide better education to middle and high school teachers and students around food safety and human nutrition policy, not in a dry, technical way, but by sharing engaging history, microbiology, patient stories, and case studies. We need to teach how and why our food can be unsafe and what consumers can do about it.
- Consolidate. Finally, make a single federal agency out of USDA/FSIS, FDA, and the food safety parts of CDC, NOAA, and EPA, to oversee food safety and human nutrition. Making food safety and human nutrition its own agency would help increase governmental accountability, close regulatory loopholes, facilitate the collection and sharing of information and facilitate critical change. I might have a suggestion for someone to run it.
With the CDC estimating 48,000,000 are sickened each year, 125,000 hospitalized, and 3,000 die from food, preventing pathogenic foodborne illness is no simple matter. And, if you consider the millions that are impacted by the lack of adequate and safe nutrition, we have a lot to do. However, it can be done, and the six ideas above are a small start.
“Doing anything is better than doing nothing,” my Marine drill sergeant father used to say. He used to require my brother and I to make our beds every morning and bounce quarters on them. For the longest time I thought this was punishment. But it was not punishment, it was accomplishment, that you could build on for the rest of the day. Doing “little” things, like the six things above, are accomplishments. Doing them starts a process that will continue to make all our lives just a little bit safer.
Aug
8
2023
Big changes coming to pet food labels—and about time too
AAFCO, the American Association of Feed Control Officials, says its membership has at last agreed to fix pet food labels so they look more like Nutrition Facts labels. When this happens, you might possibly be able to understand them.
Here’s what the nutrition information on a pet food label looks like now.
Pet food labels follow the regulations for animal feed, not human food.
This might have made sense when dogs and cats were on their own to hunt or be fed household scraps, but it makes no sense at all now that pets are considered members of the family—fur babies.
The agreed-upon changes have to be incorporated into state regulations, and manufacturers need time to adopt them. Everybody gets 6 years to do this, although some companies will undoubtedly start using the new rules right away.
The changes will be in four areas of the labels:
- Nutrition Facts Box – Updated to resemble human-food labeling more closely. This will be a Pet Nutriton Facts panel.
- Intended Use Statement – Updated to new location on the lower-third of the front display panel to help consumers easily identify the purpose of the pet food.
- Ingredient Statement – Updated to clarify the use of consistent terminology and allow parentheticals and common or usual names for vitamins.
- Handling and Storage Instructions (optional) – Updated and standardized with optional icons for greater consistency.
This is a great step forward. One reason why I think so is that the new Pet Nutrition Facts label is exactly what Mal Nesheim and I recommended in our book, Feed Your Pet Right.
That book came out in 2010; these rules go into effect in 2029.
It pays to be patient—and to persist!
Aug
7
2023
Industry-funded study of the week: sugar!
My thanks to Paola Baratto for sending this one.
The study: . Intakes of Added Sugars, with a Focus on Beverages and the Associations with Micronutrient Adequacy in US Children, Adolescents, and Teens (NHANES 2003–2018). Ricciuto L, Fulgoni VL III, Gaine PC, Scott MO, DiFrancesco L. Nutrients. 2023; 15(15):3285. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153285.
Method: This is an analysis of links between added sugars from different kinds of drinks and nutrient adequacy in children using combined data from 8 consecutive NHANES surveys (2003-2018).
Results: I found the results hard to understand because they are presented selectively by age, and they compare nutrient intakes to estimated average requirements. Here is what I think they mean:
- 2 to 8 year olds: If they got their sugar from flavored milk, they had better calcium intake.
- 9 to 18 year olds: If they got their sugar from soft drinks, coffee, or tea, thei had worse intakes of magnesium and vitamins A and C. But if they got their sugars from fruit drinks or flavored milk, they had better intake of vitamin C (from the fruit drinks), and of calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin A, and potassium (from the flavored milk).
- 9 to 18 year olds: Higher intake of added sugars in the overall diet was associated with bettter intake of vitamins and minerals.
Conclusion: The results suggest that the relationship between added sugars intake and micronutrient adequacy depends on the added sugar sources and their nutrient composition.
Funding: The funding for this research was provided by The Sugar Association, Inc. P.C.G. and M.O.S. are employed by The Sugar Association Inc., had input in the study design, and reviewed and edited the manuscript.
Comment: The Sugar Association’s purpose in sponsoring this study is to buttress its argument that sugary drinks and foods have nutrients and, therefore, do not warrant restrictions. If you get the idea from this study that the more sugary foods you eat, the more nutrients you and your kids get, the Association will be even happier. Sorry Sugar Association, but it is quite possible to consume adequate intakes of vitamins and minerals without eating sugary foods and doing so will make calories easier to control. With this study, the Sugar Association got what it paid for.
Aug
4
2023
Weekend reading: FDA’s curricula for middle and high school teachers
I started out my careeer as an instructor in a university biology department teaching cell and molecular biology. I got handed a nutrition course to teach and quickly discovered it was the best way to engage students in learning biology. I’ve never looked back.
Now the FDA has made the same discovery:
The Science and Our Food Supply Teacher Guides are challenging hands-on, minds-on activities that empower students to make informed choices about food safety, nutrition, biotechnology, and dietary supplements. They are crafted in a teacher-friendly modular format that easily fit into science, health, and other classes.
I. Food Safety: Science and Our Food Supply: Investigating Food Safety from Farm to Table (2014)
Resources
- Food Safety Middle Level Guide (PDF 8MB)
- Food Safety High School Guide (PDF: 8MB)
- Science and Our Food Supply: Fillable Student Activity Sheet
- Dr. X and the Quest for Food Safety Interactive Video
- Food Safety A to Z Reference Guide
- Careers in Food Science
II. Nutrition: Science and Our Food Supply: Using the Nutrition Facts Label to Make Healthy Food Choices (2022)
III. Biotechnology: Science and Our Food Supply: Exploring Food Agriculture and Biotechnology (2020)
IV. Dietary Supplements: Science and Our Food Supply: Examining Dietary Supplements (2021)
COMMENT
I think these are pretty good and could make teaching these topics easy for teachers and fun for students. They are written intelligently and do not talk down. All of them provide useful sections on how to decide whether information sources are reliable. For that alone!
The curricula provide plenty to work with, even though they are decidedly non-controversail. You would never know from reading the one on biotechnology, for example, that the topic caused much in the way of debate.
Aug
3
2023
Annals of marketing to kids–Sweet drink collectibles!
I thought I had seen everything when it comes to marketing to kids, but I never would have imagined this one. Sweet drinks aimed at kids with animal-shaped tops: “Collect them all!”
The photo was sent to me by a reader who spotted these in a Safeway in a suburb of Sacramento. I have not seem them in any of my local New York markets.
The reader also send photos of the Nutrition Facts panel—19 grams of sugars in 6 ounces.
I went to the company website to check the ingredients.
Here’s the list for 100% Fruit Punch Juice
Water, Concentrated Apple, Pear And Grape Juices, Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Natural Fruit Punch Flavor.
Note the title carefully—it does not say this is 100% juice. The “juice” comes from fruit concentrates, essentially fruit-flavored sugar.
Lest you worry about the sugar, the product comes with claims (and my comments):
- No sugar added (it doesn’t have to be; the concentrates have plenty)
- Excellent source of vitamin C (because it’s added)
- Non GMO (the FDA has not approved GMO apples, pears, or grapes)
- No artificial colors (at least that).
- No artificial preservatives (ditto).
- Pasteurized (ditto).
- No artificial flavors (we can argue about what “natural fruit punch flavor” is likely to be).
The company sponsors a club for kid collectors (“the good-for-you-juice has never been so fun!”).
And it offers plenty of options to collect: “Topped with 200+ of your kids favorite characters.”
The company, good2grow, is owned by Wind Point Partners, a venture capital company.
Our value creation plan focuses on driving velocity and distribution gains, increasing penetration of non-core juice SKUs.
Will the cute cartoon toys take market share away from all the other sweetened drinks aimed at kids? That’s their point. We will see whether it works.
Parents: do not take your kids into the kids’ drink sections of supermarkets.
If you must buy your kids a sweet drink, one made with diluted fruit juice is a reasonable choice.
Aug
2
2023
Do people understand what ultra-processed means? Yes, they do.
My email and Twitter (sorry, X) feeds are full of arguments about the NOVA classification of foods, which divides foods into four categories:
- Unprocessed and minimally processed foods
- Processed culinary ingredients
- Processed foods
- Ultra-processed foods
By this classification system, you don’t need to worry about the first three categories. The only one that matters is #4, associated strongly with poor health and demonstrated in one clinical trial to induce over-eating; ultra-processed foods are formulated to make them irresistable so you can’t eat just one.
At issue is the definition, with critics arguing that ultra-processed foods are so confusingly defined that nobody can figure out what they are.
That has not been my experience in talking about ultra-processed foods. As far as I can tell, people get the concept right away, which is one reason why the food industry opposes the concept so strongly.
A new study confirms my view. I first read about it in Food Navigator, a newsletter I read daily:
NOVA classification matches consumer instincts, study findsThe NOVA classification system is used to ascertain whether foods are minimally processed, processed or ‘ultra-processed’. A new study has found that people’s perceptions of foods and their processing levels usually align with their NOVA classification…. Read more
I went immediately to the study: Perceived degree of food processing as a cue for perceived healthiness: The NOVA system mirrors consumers’ perceptions,
Alenica Hässig, Christina Hartmann, Luisma Sanchez-Siles, Michael Siegrist, Food Quality and Preference, Volume 110, 2023, 104944,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104944.
Its main points:
- Consumers had negative associations of foods produced by the industry.
- Perceived degree of processing was a cue for consumers’ evaluation of food healthiness.
- Laypeople’s perception of food processing was in line with the NOVA classification.
I”d say the NOVA classification is doing exactly what it is supposed to, and misunderstanding it is not an issue.
Addition
A reader writes that she is pushing back on this post suggesting (correctly) that I did not read the study carefully. She points out:
- Its authors work for a food company that might have a conflicted interest.
- Some of its methods seem dubious [I don’t agree about all her points].
She concludes: “We should all be careful about rushing in, reading abstracts & author’s conclusions and making comments, without first reading the study in its entirety.”
She’s right. Apologies.
Aug
1
2023
Letter to FDA on front-of-package labels
I signed a letter organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest calling on the FDA to do more to research front-of-package labels.
This is in response to the FDA’s announcement of what it plans to test in developing a front-of-package labeling scheme.
We asked the FDA for specific additions to the research proposals, among them this one:
- Consider testing additional High In scheme designs with attention-grabbing features like these:
We noted that the FDA states three goals for the research:
- Participants’ ability to correctly interpret the nutritional profile of the product
- The speed at which participants make their decisions
- Whether or not participants search for more information to answer the question (i.e., whether they click a link to view the Nutrition Facts label)
We argued that
Of the three outcomes, we believe that participants’ ability to correctly interpret the nutritional profile of the product is the most important [because it is the only one that is independently and objectively desirable. In contrast, the desirability of faster decision-making is dependent on whether the decision is correct, and it is unclear what would be the more desirable outcome with respect to searching for the Nutrition Facts label. Searching for the Nutrition Facts label could be positive (if the labeling scheme spurs consumers to learn more about the product’s nutrition information and ingredients) or negative (if the labeling scheme is not noticeable or confusing and thus participants need to seek more information).
Front-of-package labeling has been in the works for a long time. It’s great the FDA is getting to it.
