The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report complaining about the Biden administration’s update of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP).

The Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) describes how much it costs to eat a healthy diet on a limited budget, and is the basis for maximum Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. In 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reevaluated the Thrifty Food Plan and made decisions that resulted in increased costs and risks for the reevaluated TFP. Specifically, the agency (1) allowed the cost of the TFP—and thus SNAP benefits—to increase beyond inflation for the first time in 45 years, and (2) accelerated the timeline of the reevaluation by 6 months in order to respond to the COVID-19 emergency. The reevaluation resulted in a 21 percent increase in the cost of the TFP and the maximum SNAP benefit.

The complaint, done at the request of Republican members of the House and Senate, says that “USDA began the reevaluation without three key project management elements in place.”

First, without a charter, USDA missed an opportunity to identify ways to measure project success and to set clear expectations for stakeholders.

Second, USDA developed a project schedule but not a comprehensive project management plan that included certain elements, such as a plan for ensuring quality throughout the process.

Third, the agency did not employ a dedicated project manager to ensure that key practices in project management were generally followed.

USDA gathered external input, but given time constraints, did not fully incorporate this input in its reevaluation.

The GAO agreed, titled its report,  Thrifty Food Plan: Better planning and accountability could help ensure quality of future reevaluations, and said ” GAO found that key decisions did not fully meet standards for economic analysis, primarily due to failure to fully disclose the rationale for decisions, insufficient analysis of the effects of decisions, and lack of documentation.

Comment: The Thrifty Food Plan is the lowest cost of four plans (the other three are the Low-Cost, Moderate-Cost, and Liberal Food Plans) developed by USDA to set standards for a nutritious diet.

These were developed by the USDA in the 1930s to provide “consumers with practical and economic advice on healthful eating.”  The latest figures for a family of four say that the monthly cost of these plans averages about $683, $902, $1121, and $1,362, respectively.

In 2018, the Farm Bill instructed the USDA to re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan by 2022 and every five years thereafter.  The most recent revisions was in 2006.

The Thrifty Food Plan has obvious weaknesses:

• It is based on unrealistic amounts and kinds of foods.
• The food list is not consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
• It assumes adequate transportation, equipment, time for food preparation.
• It assumes adequate availability and affordability of the listed foods.
• It costs more than SNAP benefits.

The Plan was long overdue for an update.  The complaints about process are a cover for the real issue: Republican opposition to raising SNAP costs.

No question, SNAP costs have gone up, and by a lot, in billions.

• 2019  $55.6
• 2020  $74.1
• 2021  $108.5
• 2022  $114.5

Food insecurity has decreased accordingly.  And that, after all, is the point.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

It’s a sad sign of the times that the CDC has found it necessary to revise its standard growth charts for boys and girls in order to expand Body Mass Index ranges to include current weights.

The 2000 CDC BMI-for-age growth charts, based on data from 1963-1980 for most children, do not extend beyond the 97th percentile. So, CDC developed new percentiles to monitor very high BMI values. These extended percentiles are based on data for children and adolescents with obesity – including from 1988-2016 – thus increasing the data available in the reference population. See the report on alternative BMI metrics for more information.

Here’s what the comparison looks like (thanks to David Ludwig):

The comparison for girls extends to a BMI of 56.

What are we to make of this?  In revising the growth charts, the CDC is recognizing reality: children weigh more than they used to, and sometimes a lot more.

Why: the quick-and-dirty answer:  junk food (more calories consumed) and electronic media plus imprisonment (fewer calories expended).

The world has changed.  When I was a kid, and when my kids were kids, we didn’t eat a lot of junk food (more politely, ultra-processed), we weren’t allowed to snack all day, and we were free—required!—to walk to school and play outdoors unaccompanied.

Shouldn’t the CDC be engaging in campaigns to promote healthier eating and more activity among children?

One can wish.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Thanks to Larissa Zimberoff (“Technically Food”) for forwarding this gem of a press release.

Grape Consumption Helps Counter UV Damage to Skin

Recent study reinforces promising role of grapes in photoprotection

A recent human study published in the scientific journal Antioxidants found that consuming grapes protected against ultraviolet (UV) damage to the skin.^[1]  Study subjects showed increased resistance to sunburn after consuming 2 ¼ cups of grapes [sic] every day for two weeks. Additionally, subjects displaying UV resistance also demonstrated unique microbiomic and metabolomic profiles suggesting a correlation between the gut and skin. Natural components found in grapes known as polyphenols are thought to be responsible for these beneficial effects.

The title alone makes me ask: Who paid for this?

Here’s the study: ^[1] Pezzuto, J.M.; Dave, A.; Park, E.-J.; Beyoğlu, D.; Idle, J.R. Short-Term Grape Consumption Diminishes UV-Induced Skin Erythema. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 2372. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11122372

Funding: “This work was supported in part by the California Table Grape Commission (J.M.P and J.R.I./D.B.).”  The funding statement continues:

The sponsor was not involved in the preparation of the article; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit this article for publication.

Comment: That’s what they all say, despite much overall evidence to the contrary.

Why the sic?  The study was not, in fact, done wtih grapes.,  It was done with “whole grape powder – equivalent to 2.25 cups of grapes per day – for 14 days.”

Are powdered grapes the same as whole grapes?  Would anyone be willing to eat 2.25 cups of whole grapes every day for 14 days?

I like grapes, and grow two kinds on a fence in Ithaca, some for eating, the Concord ones for jam.  Grapes are fruit.  Fruit is good for health.  Eat them if you like them.  They are useful parts of healthy diets.

Are grapes the only fruit that helps counter UV damage to skin?  I doubt it.  But I’m guessing sunscreens work better.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Stacy Malkan hasa new report out.

This report documents how Monsanto manipulated public opinion to minimize concerns about the potential dangers of glyphosate (Roundup).

In this report, we show how pesticide companies not only followed in the footsteps of Big Oil and Big Tobacco, they helped to write the public relations playbook that obscures the dangers of widely used products that science shows are threatening human and environmental health around the globe.

This report about Monsanto’s campaign to defend glyphosate tells one piece of a broader story: that for decades, pesticide companies have waged expensive PR campaigns to shape the narrative about science and our food system, pushing the twin ideas that pesticides — a term that encompasses insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and more — are safe and that we need them to feed the world.

In recent years, groundbreaking global studies have shown the grave threat agricultural chemicals pose to biodiversity and public health and how they fail to deliver on their promises for greater agricultural productivity, leading to crop loss and weed and pest resistance.

Worth reading?  Definitely!

For the data and for the details of Monsanto’s highly effective PR campaign.

TODAY on Zoom: 11:00 a.m.  Register here.

*******

I’m always fascinated by the food industry’s rationale for massive layoffs.

PepsiCo, for example.

It is planning to lay off hundreds of workers (see Washington Post announcement, and Food Navigator discussion).

The Wall Street Journal report’s Pepsi’s rationale:
PepsiCo Inc. PEP -0.37% is laying off workers at the headquarters of its North American snacks and beverages divisions, a signal that corporate belt-tightening is extending beyond tech and media, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal…In a memo sent to staff that was viewed by the Journal, PepsiCo told employees that the layoffs were intended “to simplify the organization so we can operate more efficiently.”

PepsiCo reported a 12% increase in revenues last year.

Its global revenues came close to $80 billion in 2021.

PepsiCo Beverages North America’s operating profit has recently decreased by 10%,

primarily reflecting certain operating cost increases, including incremental transportation costs, a 37-percentage-point impact of higher commodity costs and higher advertising and marketing expenses. These impacts were partially offset by net revenue growth and productivity savings.

It paid its CEO $25,506,607 in 2021.  This is 500 times more than the median employee salary of $52,000.

That’s how the system works.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, during the seventeenth session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage has incribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity—ta da!—baguette bread.

The traditional production process entails weighing and mixing the ingredients, kneading, fermentation, dividing, relaxing, manually shaping, second fermentation, marking the dough with shallow cuts (the baker’s signature) and baking. Unlike other loaves, the baguette is made with only four ingredients (flour, water, salt and leaven and/or yeast) from which each baker obtains a unique product. Baguettes require specific knowledge and techniques…They also generate modes of consumption and social practices that differentiate them from other types of bread…Their crisp crust and chewy texture result in a specific sensory experience.

The New York Times account points out that this designation comes in the midst of “economic upheavals that include rising prices and the widespread closing of the country’s rural bakeries.”

The decision captured more than the craft knowledge of making bread — it also honored a way of life that the thin crusty loaf has long symbolized and that recent economic upheavals have put under threat. UNESCO’s choice came as boulangeries in rural areas are vanishing, hammered by economic forces like the slow hollowing out of France’s villages, and as the economic crisis gripping Europe has pushed the baguette’s price higher than ever.

* The photo is of Salvador Dali’s Bust of a Woman at MOMA.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Healthy People 2030 has released its latest set of tracking data.  This, you will recall, is the latest of the US Public Health Service’s 10-year plans for improving the health of Americans.  The agencies involved set specific, measurable objectives and track progress toward achieving them.

You can browse the full set of objectives here.

The objectives for overweight and obesity are here.  Three have tracking data available.  Of these,

One shows no change: Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents with obesity — NWS‑04

Two are getting worse

• Reduce the proportion of adults with obesity — NWS‑03
• Increase the proportion of women who had a healthy weight before pregnancy — MICH‑13

The objectives for Nutrition and Healthy Eating are here.

Of the objectives with data available, two showi improvement!

As regular readers know, I subscribe to the weekly newsletter, Obesity and Energetics Offerings, and particularly enjoy its section on Headline vs Study.

Here’s a particularly amusing example, which right away triggers my question: Who paid for this?

Headline vs Study

• Headline: Snacking on Almonds Can Help People Reduce Calorie Intake: Study.  
• Press Release: Believe It or ‘Nut’, Almonds Can Help You Cut Calories, Study Finds.  
• Study: “There was no significant difference in total energy intake ([…] p = 0.286) or energy from core ([…] p = 0.860) or discretionary foods ([…] p = 0.158) between [almonds and an isocaloric carbohydrate-rich snack bar].”

Let’s take a look.

Headline: Snacking on Almonds Can Help People Reduce Calorie Intake: Study.

A handful of almonds may be the latest weight loss hack, new research suggests.

A new study from the University of South Australia found that eating 30 to 50 grams of almonds could regulate appetite, leading to less calories consumed each day.

The research, which examined both the hormones that regulate appetite and how almonds could aid in controlling hunger, discovered that the consumption of the nut ultimately led to about 300 fewer calories [sic*]consumed at the following meal.

Press Release: Believe It or ‘Nut’, Almonds Can Help You Cut Calories, Study Finds.

Examining how almonds can affect appetite, researchers found that a snack of 30-50 grams of almonds could help people cut back on the number of kilojoules they consume each day.

Published in the European Journal of Nutrition, the study found that people who consumed almonds — as opposed to an energy-equivalent carbohydrate snack — lowered their energy intake by 300 kilojoules (most of which came from junk food) at the subsequent meal.

Study:  Acute feeding with almonds compared to a carbohydrate-based snack improves appetite-regulating hormones with no effect on self-reported appetite sensations: a randomised controlled trial. Carter, S., Hill, A.M., Buckley, J.D. et al.Eur J Nutr (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-022-03027-2

Results: “…Cholecystokinin, ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1, leptin and polypeptide YY AUCs were not different between groups. Self-reported appetite ratings and energy intake following the buffet did not differ between groups.”

Conclusion: “More favourable appetite-regulating hormone responses to AL did not translate into better self-reported appetite or reduced short-term energy consumption. Future studies should investigate implications for longer term appetite regulation.”

Funding: “This work was funded by the Almond Board of California. This funding source had no role in the design of this study or the analysis and interpretation of the data.”

Conflict of interest: “AMC has consulted for Nuts for Life (an initiative of the Australian Tree Nut Industry). S-YT has previously been involved in studies funded by the Californian Walnut Commission. AMC, JDB and S-YT have previously been involved in studies funded by International Nut and Dried Fruit Council.”

*Comment: How could the headline get it so wrong?  The authors write: “Although not significant, the AL group consumed 300 kJ less energy in the meal challenge than the SB group, 270 kJ of which came from discretionary foods, which may be a clinically important benefit in weight management.”  The sic partly explains the problem.  The 300 refers to kilojoules (kj), not calories.  300 kj = 72 calories, not 300.  No wonder the result wasn’t statistically significant.

But the press release and resulting headline explain why the nut industry funds studies like this.  Even when the result shows no difference, the PR people can spin the data to produce the expected favorable result.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.