I saw this on Twitter (X):

For the video, click here.

I’m for all three actions.  I’ve argued for years for getting rid of conflicts of interest and focusing resources on preventing chronic disease.

I can’t wait to find out how the new administration plans to accomplish these goals.   We all need to hold it accountable for delivering on these promises.

A reader sent me this e-mailed announcement from the Kentucky Public Health Association. 

The announcement features “hot off the press” research.

• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Contribution of beef to key nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy in pregnant and lactating women: NHANES 2011-2018 Analysis. Pregnant & lactating women who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, iron, zinc.  [Funding: This research was funded by the Beef Checkoff].
• Christifano DN, et al. The role of fresh beef intake and Mediterranean Diet adherence during pregnancy in maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnant women who eat about 1.5 oz. of beef/day as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern are less likely to develop maternal anemia, compared to those who have lower intake of beef. Additionally, pregnant women who eat more beef have higher intakes of nutrients critical for maternal & child health, including protein, iron, zinc, choline, B vitamins. [Funding: This research was partly funded by Beef Checkoff]
• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Beef consumption is associated with higher intakes and adequacy of key nutrients in older adults age 60+ year: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2000-2018 Analysis. Older adults who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, vitamin B12, iron. [Funding: This work was supported by The Beef Checkoff].

More Information

For more information, visit The Kentucky Beef Council and Beef It’s What’s For Dinner.
For infographics and nutrition handouts, click here.
To join our monthly health professional newsletter, register here.

COMMENT

This advertisement from the Kentucky Beef Council was sent to members of the Kentucky Public Health Association.  It does not say who sponsored the hot new research [I had to look it up].

The partnership raises several questions:

• Is the Kentucky Beef Council a sponsor of the Association?  If so, at what level? (Its annual report does not list sponsors.  Neither does its website, although it does list sponsorship categories for its annual meetings).
• Do members of the Kentucky Public Health Association believe that their association’s apparent endorsement of beef is a good idea?
• Are Kentucky public health nutritionists talking to their clients about the role of beef in health and environmental sustainability?
• If so, what are they saying?

The benefit of this kind of sponsorship/partnership to the Kentucky Beef Council is obvious.

But it raises serious questions about the integrity of the Kentucky Public Health Association.

I hope KPHA members are discussing this issue with the Association’s leadership.

Santa Cruz, a college town on the California coast south of San Francisco, has a ballot initiative to tax sugar-sweetened beverages (Berkeley has one too but its vote is expected to be so favorable that the soda industry isn’t even bothering to fight it).

But the soda industry is sinking a fortune—more than $1.6 million so far—into fighting the Santa Cruz proposal.

The reason is obvious, as Politico explains.

In 2018, industry lobbyists succeeded in pressuring the Legislature to pass a bill banning local governments from enacting new soda taxes for six years.

With next month’s vote, Santa Cruz officials hope theirs will be the first city to attempt to defy that ban by winning voter approval for Measure Z. The two-cent-per-bottle tax is specifically crafted to provoke a lawsuit over the constitutionality of the 2018 state law…Those soda giants are now descending on the Santa Cruz boardwalk with a familiar playbook, relying on seemingly bottomless corporate resources to flood the city with an anti-tax message updated for a new moment in which soda has lost its stranglehold on the American palate.

Do soda taxes discourage purchases?  So it seems.  The money also can be used for good purposes, as it has been in Berkeley.  A win-win for public health!

If you are a Santa Cruz voter, here’s your chance to vote for something that might actually do some good—and an excellent reason to go to the polls and do your overall civic duty, while you are at it.

CANDY

IFT’s Food Technology Sweet and Spooky:  Halloween is one of the most popular times for consumers to purchase candy. Mars, in partnership with Ipsos Omnibus, surveyed nearly 3,000 U.S. adults about their Halloween plans to learn more about how consumers celebrate.

Interactive Candy Map 2024: Our map ranks the most popular Halloween candy in each state in America, as well as the first and second runners up. Our results are firmly grounded in 17 years of candy sales data! Key Takeaways: – Reese’s Cups Loses #1 Spot for the First Time Ever.

The WORST Halloween Candy 2024: People get really fired up about the candy they don’t like. Over 10,000 survey responses from the past 12 months! Key Takeaways — – Circus Peanuts Retain #1 Worst Spot; – Candy Corn on Both Lists? Divisive.

Better-for-you candy brands are going all in on Halloween: “Better-for-you candy brands are hoping that adults will dole out low-sugar gummies or chocolate-dipped nuts to trick-or-treaters this Halloween season,“ Modern Retail reported.

New York Times Candy IQ: Trick or treat! See how much you really know about sweets with this quiz.

PUMPKINS

World’s largest pumpkin: Minnesota grower wins again at World Championship Pumpkin Weigh-Off. 2,471 pounds. That wasn’t enough to beat the world record he set last year — that pumpkin was 2,749 pounds.

Scaring Halloween Trick-or-Treaters Is Free. But This Pumpkin? $13.50: Each application of pepper spray for pests costs the Dykemans, who calculate many expenditures by acre, about $150 per acre. Two charcoal filters, $400 apiece, protect operators in this John Deere tractor ($67,000 in 2008), which takes $130 of diesel. Fertilizer prices, which soared in part because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have come down in recent months. But it remains a significant cost, the Dykemans said, at $200 per acre.

Pumpkin Seeds: A Tiny Seed With Big Benefits: With Halloween just around the corner, pumpkins are everywhere! However, many people overlook a highly nutrient-rich part of the pumpkin – the seeds…For instance, just a small handful provides around 40% of the recommended daily value for magnesium

Pumpkins: Background & Statistics: All States produce some pumpkins, but six States produce most of them. According to the most recent USDA, Census of Agriculture, in 2022, about 45 percent of pumpkin acres were harvested in the top six pumpkin-producing States, measured by pumpkin weight. 

HOLIDAY ECONOMICS

Pricing fears grow ahead of Halloween: Cocoa and sugar prices are reported to have reached frightening highs, with alarming price rallies predicted…. Read more

Halloween’s Mutation: From Humble Holiday to Retail Monstrosity: In 2024, consumers are expected to spend $11.6 billion celebrating the holiday, up from $3.3 billion in 2005….Spending on candy is expected to reach $3.5 billion this year.

PET SAFETY? SURE, WHY NOT?

Halloween Pet Safety: It’s the season for costumes, candy, and creepy décor. Halloween can be one of the most fun holidays for a pet, but also one of the most hazardous. From choosing safe costumes to takeaways on trick or treating, the following Halloween pet safety tips will help both you and your dog have a frightfully delightful holiday. Continue Reading.

RESOURCES

Institute for Food Technology’s confection content collection: Explore IFT’s collection of scientific resources on chocolate, hard candy, and other confections.

Enjoy the holiday!

Every five years since 1980, we get to go through the most enormous fuss about dietary guidelines that have not changed in any fundamental way since then.

Then and now, they say eat more vegetables, balance calories, and reduce intake of foods high in sugar, salt, and fat.

You don’t believe me?  Here is the much more straightforward 1980 version.

Reminder: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is just that: advisory.  The agencies will write the actual guidelines.  Until the guidelines actually appear, everything remains speculative.  They are due to appear by the end of 2025.  Between now and then, we have an election to deal with.  No matter who wins, political appointees in the two sponsoring departments will change and could greatly intervene.

I love the Dietary Guidelines.  They are endlessly entertaining examples of food politics in action.

The current Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has produced its draft recommendations.  These, as I discuss tomorrow, are mostly banal, much the same as all guidelines since 1980.

But this year there are two rather shocking exceptions, both having to do with what is not recommended.

Incredible non-recommendation #1.  Reduce the focus of the Dietary Guidelines on reduction of chronic disease risk.

What???  The entire purpose of the Dietary Guidelines is to reduce the risk of diet-related disease.  Chronic diseases—obesity, type-2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc—are the leading causes of death and disability among U.S. adults.

Maybe this was a typo?  Surely this committee means to say “Recommend increasing the focus of the Dietary Guidelines on chronic disease risk reduction.

The current wording is a travesty.  I’m not the only one who thinks so.  See Jerry Mande’s Tweet (X).

Update: I gather the uproar over this did some good and the committee is changing the wording.

Incredible non-recommendation #2.  Say nothing about ultra-processed foods.

The committee made it clear that they were not going to say a word about ultra-processed foods.  At least not now.  Why not?

Scientific experts tasked with advising federal officials drafting the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans said the data were far too limited to draw conclusions…Ultra-processed foods don’t have a recognized definition or a robust body of scientific literature that has studied them, they said, so guidelines would be premature.

Another travesty.  An overwhelming body of observational research suggests harm from diets high in ultra-processed foods.  OK, these studies only demonstrate association, not causation.

But—not one, but two well-controlled clinical trials demonstrate that ultra-processed foods induce people to consume more calories than they would otherwise: 500 more in one trial and more than 800 in the second.  These are enormous differences.

Yes, it would be great to know why, exactly.  And yes, the definition of ultra-processed can be fuzzy with respect to a few—remarkably few—foods.

But what more do you need to know?  Isn’t this enough to tell people that if they want to keep caloric intake under control, a good way to do that would be to limit consumption of ultra-processed foods?

But this committee chose to ignore the controlled trials because they didn’t last long enough.

As I explain in that link, the committee’s hands are tied by having to make “science-based” recommendations.  But in nutrition, most of the science is observational, which is why those controlled trials, short in duration as they are, matter so much.

The committee needs to revisit this decision.  If the guidelines do not include a recommendation to limit intake of ultra-processed foods, they will be ignoring the science and will be behind the times.

Worse, the guidelines will not help Americans reduce their risks for chronic disease.

See: Stat News:  5 questions about the next U.S. dietary guidelines, and the ‘impossible restriction’ on them: Difficulty of nutrition research leaves problems like ultra-processed foods largely unaddressed. 

Tomorrow: the banality of the latest recommendations.

Thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America for this one.

Substituting Refined Sugars With Maple Syrup Decreases Key Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Individuals With Mild Metabolic Alterations: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Crossover Trial. Arianne Morissette, Anne-Laure Agrinier, Théo Gignac, Lamia Ramadan, Khoudia Diop, Julie Marois, Thibault V Varin, Geneviève Pilon, Serge Simard, Éric Larose, Claudia Gagnon, Benoit J Arsenault, Jean-Pierre Després, Anne-Marie Carreau, Marie-Claude Vohl, André Marette.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 154, Issue 10, 2024, Pages 2963-2975.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.08.014.

Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial with 42 overweight adults with mild cardiometabolic alterations, participants were instructed to substitute 5% of their total caloric intake from added sugars with either maple syrup or an artificially flavored sucrose syrup for 8 wk.

Results: Replacing refined sugars with maple syrup over 8 wk decreased the glucose area under the curve when compared with substituting refined sugars with sucrose syrup, as determined during the oral glucose tolerance test, leading to a significant difference between the intervention arms.

Conclusions: Substituting refined sugars with maple syrup in individuals with mild metabolic alterations result in a significantly greater reduction of key cardiometabolic risk factors compared with substitution with sucrose syrup, in association with specific changes in gut microbiota.

Funding: This study was funded by the Producteurs et productrices acéricoles du Québec (PPAQ) and the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ). The sponsors had no role in study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.