Search results: natural

The study: Amone F, Spina A, Perri A, Lofaro D, Zaccaria V, Insolia V, Lirangi C, Puoci F, Nobile V. Standardized Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) Extract Improves Short- and Long-Term Cognitive Performances in Healthy Older Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Trial. Foods. 2024; 13(18):2999. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13182999

A reader, Maria Birman, alerted me to this new report in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology from the 56-member Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity.  The commission recommended shifting the definition and diagnostic criteria for obesity away from the BMI and instead defining obesity in two categories based on health status.

• Clinical obesity: signs and symptoms of organ or other dysfunctions; a disease requiring effective health care treatment
• Pre-clinical obesity: high levels of body fat but no signs of dysfunction but higher risk for chronic disease, requiring support for risk reduction.

Maria writes:

I’m astonished by the full two-page “declaration of interests” (no conflict there, of course not!). Naturally Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk are very much interested in obesity being considered a disease, and a treatable one at that. And doctors and scientists paid by these companies authored this paper which is posed to be very influential.

I took a look at the conflict-of-interest statement.  It is indeed astonishing as it goes on and on for nearly two pages in four columns.

Maria saved me from having to go through the analysis.  Here are her counts.

• Of the 56 authors, 47 declared conflicts of interest; only 9 did not.
• All 8 authors on the steering committee declare financial ties to drug companies.
• Novo Nordisk (Ozempic, Wegovy) is mentioned 60 times by 38 authors.
• Eli Lilly (Zepbound) is mentioned 39 times by 27 authors.
• Authors report financial ties to other pharmaceutical companies: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eurodrug Laboratories, Sanofi., and others.
• Authors report consulting fees, fees for educational purposes, research grants, speaker fees, co-authorship of manuscripts, medical writing assistance, and personal honoraria as a consultant and speaker, among others.
• Authors report financial ties to food companies such as Nestlé, which makes the Vital Pursuit line marketed to people on Ozempic.

Comment

No question, the BMI is an imperfect measure of the health risks of obesity, although it works pretty well as a first step.  Defining obesity as a disease may well help get treatment for people who need it.

I wish we had a health care system that could help people with obesity find out whether they have the clinical or pre-clinical form.  In the absence of  a functional health care system, we have drugs—effective and without deleterious side effects for some people, but for the great majority, highly expensive and hard to get.

This commission appears as an arm of the pharmaceutical industry.  Its findings require careful scrutiny.

Charlotte Bilekoff.  Real Food, Real Facts: Processed Food and the Politics of Knowledge.  University of California Press, 2024.  267 pages.

Food processing is a big issue these days (witness RFK Jr’s pledge to get ultra-processed foods out of school meals) and I was interested to see what food studies scholar Charlotte Biltekoff had to say about it.

Her thesis: When people say they want to eat “real food” rather than highly processed food, the food industry responds with “real facts,” science-based discussions of the benefits of food processing (“food scientism”).

The industry’s response is based on the idea that if you could only correct public ignorance and misperceptions, you could sell your products more easily.

But public concerns are about politics, not science.  And food scientism is a form of antipolitics.

She cites as an example, the FDA’s ongoing inability to define the term “natural.”

Concerned about health, sustainability, and risk and wanting change in the food system, the public sought to act on its values and aspirations in the marketplace.  Narrowly reframing those concerns as demands that could be met through product reformulations and new approaches to marketing—but without serious, systemic engagement with the broader issues they reflected—the food industry produced products that appeared to be more natural, less processed, and therefore better…articles in the industry press and comments to the FDA show that many perceived the consumers of “real food” as irrational and misinformed.  Seen through the lens of food scientism of the Real Facts frame, consumer perceptions of processing and what “natural” meant, or should mean, were further proof that the public lacked the skills and understanding to meaningfully participate in the regulatory processess, let alone act as knowledgeable participants in the governance of technology and the shaping of the food system. (p. 143)

What Biltekoff has done here is to translate the classic two-culture risk communication problem to food.

Her book made me go back and look at what I wrote about the two-culture problem in Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.  The book contrasts the differing perceptions of industry and the public about the potential harm of microbial foodborne illness versus GMOs.

These differences in approaching questions of risk were understood long before anyone invented the techniques for genetically modifying foods. In 1959, for example, the scientist and writer C. P. Snow characterized the ways in which people trained in science tend to think about the world—as opposed to those without such training—as representing two distinct cultures separated from one another by a “gulf of mutual incomprehension” [1]. Much more recently, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz wrote, “The ways in which we try to understand and deal with the physical world and those in which we try to understand and deal with the social one are not altogether the same. The methods of research, the aims of inquiry, and the standards of judgment all differ, and nothing but confusion, scorn, and accusation—relativism! Platonism! reductionism! verbalism!—results from failing to see this” [2].  [1. Snow CP. Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution: The Rede Lecture. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959; 2. Geertz C. Empowering Aristotle (book review). Science 2001;293:53].

Science-based approaches to food safety, I pointed out, count cases and estimate costs, whereas what I called “value-based” approaches, are about feelings of dread and outrage.

Biltekoff’s analysis applies the two-culture framework to public responses to food processing and to the ways the food industry deals with those responses.

Her analysis explains much about the current pushback against the concept of ultra-processed foods from the food industry and some nutritionists.  If you want to understand why the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has chosen not to recommend reducing intake of ulra-processed foods, read this book.

And, amazingly, the book is available as open source.  Read the book online here.

Read Charlotte Biltekoff’s interview with UC Press here.

Sara B. Franklin.  The Editor: How Publishing Legend Judith Jones Shaped Culture in America.  Atria Books, 2024.  316 pages.

I badly wanted to read this book.  Sara Franklin got her doctorate in Food Studies in my NYU department and I met Judith Jones several times in the 1990s and 2000s (she died in 2017).

Judith Jones is famous in food circles for rescuing Julia Child’s manuscript for Mastering the Art of French Cooking and getting Knopf to publish it.

But the best way to understand her impact is to take a look at the jaw-dropping list of authors she edited; it takes up two and a half double-columned pages, and includes poets (WH Auden, Sylvia Plath, Sharon Olds) and writers (Andre Gide, John Hersey, Langton Hughes), as well as a breathtaking list of food writers: MFK Fisher, Marion Cunningham, Elizabeth David, Scott Peakock, Elisabeth Rosin, Jeffrey Steingarten, and on and on.  And, oh yes, Anne Frank.

The story here is of a woman who began her editing career in 1949 when the best women could aspire to was secretarial work.  She worked her way up through the system, but did not fight it and was always treated as someone who didn’t matter much, despite that incredible list of authors, many of them deeply devoted to Judith for what she did for them.

As an author, I can tell you that a good editor is a treasure and she was a terrific one.  She got her authors to clarify, explain, focus, and make their books readable, understandable, and enjoyable for wide audiences.  This takes insight and the ability to inspire authors to do their best work—genuine talent.  It also requires stepping back and letting the authors shine.  This book details Judith’s way of staying in the background, not always to her advantage.

Sara Franklin got to know Judith Jones, was given access to her papers, and conducted loads of interviews as the basis for this book.  She tells the story of one woman’s career, but sets it against the background of changes in society and in the food world since the 1950s and in the lives of the authors she edited—the era that I too have lived through and these are people I know, explaining why I so enjoyed reading this.

I especially like the way Sara weaves herself into the book but mostly lets Judith speak for herself.  An excerpt:

“Dick [Judith’s husband] didn’t take criticism well,” Judith told me, “And I thought it awkward to play the two roles,” editor and wife at once, “so I just shut up.  I would have liked more back and forth, but people have their hang-ups”…Judith had been caught off guard by how overwhelmed she’d become by family life, and the perpetual juggle of working motherhood.  Keeping up with the demands of her career while remaining attentive and available to Dick and the children, Judith found, was an almost impossible balancing act, with “so much,” she remarked, “dumped on the woman.”  With no models to look to, Judith was flying blind. “I hadn’t really thought about it,” she told me.  “It just seemed natural.”

As I said, a classic woman’s story of the era.

Much of the book describes Judith’s acquisition of important books and the ways she worked with their authors.  I wish I had had the chance to work with her.  I know I’m not alone in thinking that would have been an honor and a privilege.

Sara’s book is terrific.  And we are so proud of her.

The book was reviewed in the New York Times: She Was More Than the Woman Who Made Julia Child Famous: In “The Editor,” Sara B. Franklin argues that Judith Jones was a “publishing legend,” transcending industry sexism to champion cookbooks — and Anne Frank.

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.

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.

Julian Baggini.  How the World Eats: A Global Food Philosophy. Granta, 2024.  443 pages.

I did a blurb for this one:

How the World Eats is an enormously wide overview of how people throughout the entire world–from hunter-gatherers to NASA astronauts–view, exist within, manage, and try to improve their food systems.  Baggini’s philosophy makes sense.  We need sustainable food systems to feed the world.

When I say “enormously wide,” I’m not kidding.  Baggini has interviewed an amazing number of people, including me.  I do not remember our interview (I don’t keep track of interviews), but he quotes me extensively—and my book Food Politics—especially in the chapter titled “The Big Business of Food.”

The book is long, not least because Baggini lets his interviews speak for themselves, regardless of their opinions on controversial food issues.  He does not use the book to argue with the people he interviewed.  If you want to know what everyone, everywhere thinks about food, from every side of an issue, this is a good starting place.

Eventually, Bagggini comes out in favor of food systems that are, in his words, “holistic, circular, pluralistic, foodcentric, resourceful, compassionate, and equitable.”

If we were to adopt the principles of Holism, Circularity, Pluralism, Foodcentrism, Resourcefulness, Compassion, and Equitability, many of the desiderata we have for the food world would come along for the ride. Everyone is in favour of sustainability, and that is what we would get if we followed these seven principles.  Similarly, a circular, plural and resourceful food system is also an efficient ne.  When the main things people want flow naturally from a set of principles, that is a good sign that those principles are the right ones.  p. 361

A reader, Katya Bloomberg, suggested I take a look at Bored Cow, “animal-free dairy milk” pumpkin spice flavored, no less.

Animal-free dairy milk sounds like an oxymoron.  What could this be?  Mostly, the website says what it does not contain.

So what’s in this?  The website doesn’t say, but Target’s does.

Ingredients: water, cane sugar, whey protein (from fermentation), sunflower oil, less than 1% of: cinnamon, vitamin a, vitamin b2 (riboflavin), vitamin b12 (cyanocobalamin), vitamin d2, citrus fiber, salt, dipotassium phopshate, acacia, gellan gum, mixed tocopherols (antioxidant), calcium potassium phosphate citrate, natural flavor.

An ultraprocessed drink, for sure, with 20 grams of sugar per 12 ounces.  The whey (the main protein in milk) is made by microorganisms, not cows. 

The process is called precision fermentation.  It involves 5-steps:

• Genetic modification of bacteria or yeast (the Bored Cow website says nothing about this)
• Cell growth
• Protein production
• Purification (centrifugation, homogenization, filtration)
• Whey production

How precise is the fermentation?

Iowa-based Health Research Institute (HRI) tested a Bored Cow product, which is described as “a milk alternative made with milk protein from fermentation instead of cows.” Using full spectrum molecular analysis technology, HRI found 92 small molecules in the product that are unknown to science, according to John Fagan, chief science officer at HRI.

Katya points out:

People are still largely confused and have no understanding what a bio-identical whey protein created by means of fermentation is. Largely though people also think that fermentation is good for health. Many vegans think this milk is vegan since it’s animal free, but it wouldn’t be a good choice for those on a plant based diet as it’s identical to actual cow milk protein. Not to mention that it’s a mix of protein with water and added oil which is hardly good for anyone… It’s a milk information war at its finest!!! Just keep confusing the consumer.

So how does this stuff taste?  I went to the Ithaca Target to look for it but could not find it.  If you can and try it, let me know.