I tend to refer to my new memoir—tongue in cheek, of course—as my first work of fiction because I know my memory is fickle.

But sometimes I get it right!

A friend who read Slow Cooked sent me a news release that turns out to fact-check this passage in my book.

“Perhaps by coincidence”?   Not at all.

The October 13 story is titled: “Stanford University apologizes for limiting Jewish student admissions during the 1950s.”

The apology comes after a task force appointed by the university’s president in January completed an archive-based report that found that Stanford took actions to suppress its admission of Jewish students…The report focuses on a 1953 university memo by university administrators who expressed concern about the number of Jewish students being admitted to Stanford, as well as a drop in enrollment from two Southern California high schools known to have large Jewish populations: Beverly Hills High School and Fairfax High School (my empasis).

In 1953, I was a senior at Fairfax High School when I applied to Stanford.  At the time, perhaps 90% of Fairfax High students were Jewsih.

The Stanford report says:

As mentioned earlier, between 1949 and 1952 Stanford enrolled 67 students from Beverly Hills High School and 20 students from Fairfax. From 1952 to 1955 Stanford enrolled 13 students from Beverly Hills High School and 1 from Fairfax.  The Registrar’s records do not indicate any
other public schools that experienced such a sharp drop in student enrollments over that same six-year period or any other six-year period during the 1950s and 1960s.

That one student accepted from Fairfax High School between 1952 and 1955 was in my class and happened not to be Jewish.

Here’s the New York Times’ account of Stanford’s apology.

***********

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

 

 

 

The advocacy group, U.S. Right to Know, sent out a press release to announce publication of an article in the British journal, Public Health Nutrition: The corporate capture of the nutrition profession in the USA: the case of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [AND, formerly the American Dietetic Association] accepted millions of dollars from food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness companies, had policies to provide favors in return, and invested in ultra-processed food company stocks, according to a study published today in Public Health Nutrition…The study was produced by public health scholars and U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative public health group that obtained tens of thousands of pages of internal Academy documents through state public records requests.

I’ve been writing about corporate capture of AND (formerly the American Dietetic Association) for years (see below), but this study shocked even me, for two reasons.

• AND holds stock in food companies making ultra-processed foods.

The documents show that the Academy and its foundation invested funds in ultra-processed food companies. The Academy’s investment portfolio in January 2015 included $244,036 in stock holdings in Nestle S.A. and $139,545 in PepsiCo. The Academy foundation’s investment portfolio in June 2013 included $209,472 in stock holdings in Nestle S.A and $125,682 in PepsiCo.

• The list of food companies donating to AND is extraordinarily long; it goes on for pages.

The Academy accepted more than $15 million from corporate and organizational contributors in the years 2011 and 2013-2017. The Academy’s top contributors in 2011 and 2013-2017 were:

• National Dairy Council $1,496,912
• Conagra Inc. $1,414,058
• Abbott Nutrition $1,246,389
• Abbott Laboratories $824,110
• Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation: $801,261
• PepsiCo Inc. $486,335
• Coca-Cola Co. $477,577
• Hershey Co. $368,032
• General Mills Inc. $309,733
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality $296,495
• Aramark Co. $293,051
• Unilever Best Foods $276,791
• Kellogg USA $273,272

The Academy’s response: Inaccuracies in U.S. Right to Know Article

The report is disjointed, mostly opinion, emails taken out of context, picking and choosing items based on words out of Board reports, etc.

The Academy lists facts

• One of the authors has strong financial ties to CrossFit, a staunch opponent to RDN licensure.
• Less than 9% (12 out of 149) of named scholarships, awards and named research grants were established through industry. The funds that are established have input into scholarship criteria, which are approved by the Foundation’s Board. An independent review committee then reviews applications and selects recipients.
• Less than 2% (32 out of 2,812) of donors to the Academy’s Second Century were industry donors.

Additional Academy facts

• Fact: The Academy is NOT influenced by sponsorship money
• Fact: Less than 3% of the Academy’s and the Foundation’s investments are in food companies.
• Fact: The Academy has never changed a position at the request of sponsors.
• Fact: Less than 9% of Academy funding comes from sponsorship.
• Fact: The Foundation’s Fellows program allows participants to serve as catalysts for change and advancement in emerging areas of need for the evolving nutrition and dietetics profession.
• Fact: The Academy and Foundation have always been committed to accountability through transparency and fiduciary responsibility.

Comment

I have been writing about the Academy’s ties with food companies for years.  See, for example,

• March 17, 2008  OK. Time to talk about the American Dietetic Association’s alliances with food companies
• March 13, 2015  Dietitians put seal on Kraft Singles (you can’t make this stuff up)
• March 18, 2015  Dietitians in turmoil over conflicts of interest: it’s about time
• March 1, 2017  The recent Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ election: controversy over non-disclosure of industry ties
• September 9, 2020  Dietetic Association lets Bayer, owner of glyphosate, educate its members about pesticides (but see correction below)
• A chapter in my book, Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat

In my book, I document how food companies exert influence through sponsorship of research and professional societies.  Typically, recipients of industry funding do not recognize the influence of sponsorship and deny it, as we see here.

If AND wants to be taken seriously as an organization devoted to public health, it needs to set strong guidelines for conflicts of interest and adhere to them.  At the moment, this organization gives the appearance of a public relations arm of the food industry.

The same can be said of the American Society of Nutrition, but that’s another story.

Resources

• U.S. Right to Know publishes a fact sheet on AND: available here.
• MedPage: Nutrition Group Has Close Ties to Food, Pharma Companies —
• Washington Post: Group shaping nutrition policy earned millions from junk food makers (I’m quoted in this)

***********

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

 

 

 

 

 

I haven’t posted anything about pistachio industry conflicts of interest since 2019 so it’s time for another one.

Here’s a press release sent to me by a reader, Matthew Kadey:

NEW STUDY REVEALS PISTACHIOS ARE AN ANTIOXIDANT POWERHOUSE…Antioxidant-rich foods are regularly encouraged as part of a healthy lifestyle, and research suggests that a diet high in antioxidants may even help to reduce the risk of death.¹ While certain fruits and vegetables are often thought of as high-antioxidant foods, a new study conducted by Cornell University and published in the journal, Nutrients, produced surprising results². Pistachios have a very high antioxidant capacity, among the highest when compared to values reported in research of many foods commonly known for their antioxidant capacity, such as blueberries, pomegranates, cherries, and beets.^3,4,5  (I’ve posted the references at the end).

My first question, as always when I see a press release like this: Who paid for it?

The study: uan, Wang, Bisheng Zheng, Tong Li, and Rui Hai Liu. 2022. Quantification of Phytochemicals, Cellular Antioxidant Activities and Antiproliferative Activities of Raw and Roasted American Pistachios (Pistacia vera L). Nutrients 14, no. 15: 3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153002

Conclusion:  It is shown that the roasting of pistachios could produce a series of beneficial phytochemical changes, leading to enhanced biological activity. Pistachios are a nutrient-dense food containing a unique profile of good-quality protein, fats, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants, such as carotenoids and polyphenols, with cellular antioxidant activity. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025 suggested including nuts as a health dietary pattern. Further research on antiproliferative activity and mechanisms of action of free-form extracts of roasted pistachios, and more biological activities related cellular antioxidant activity and oxidative stress, are worthy of further investigation.

 

Funding: This study was partially supported by Innovative Leading Talents Project of Guangzhou Development Zone and 111 Project: B17018, Cornell China Center, and American Pistachio Growers: 2021-09.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment: Roasted pistachios are healthy?  No surprise here.  Further research needed?  Also no surprise.  This is another example of an industry-funded study with unimpressive results but plenty of interpretation bias, along with the usual contention that industry funding does not induce conflicts of interest.  Alas, it does.

References to the press release paragraph

¹ Jayedi A, Rashidy-Pour A, Parohan M, Zargar MS, Shab-Bidar S. Dietary Antioxidants, Circulating Antioxidant Concentrations, Total Antioxidant Capacity, and Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Observational Studies. Adv Nutr. 2018 Nov 1;9(6):701-716. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy040. PMID: 30239557; PMCID: PMC6247336.
² Yuan W, Zheng B, Li T, Liu RH. Quantification of Phytochemicals, Cellular Antioxidant Activities and Antiproliferative Activities of Raw and Roasted American Pistachios (Pistacia vera L.). Nutrients. 2022; 14(15):3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153002
³ Wolfe KL, et al. Cellular Antioxidant Activity (CAA) Assay for Assessing Antioxidants, Foods, and Dietary Supplements. J Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 8896–8907.
⁴ Song W, et al. Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Common Vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 6621–6629. DOI:10.1021/jf9035832
⁵ Wolfe, K., Kang, X., He, X., Dong, M., Zhang, Q., and Liu, R.H. Cellular antioxidant activity of common fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (18): 8418-8426, 2008.

***********

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

 

The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) has released its latest Index report on the progress of the 11 largest U.S. food and beverage companies on their commitments to make, market and sell healthy food and drinks.

The report’s dismal conclusion:

While all companies have placed a greater focus on nutrition in their corporate strategies since the first index was released in 2018, their actual products have not become healthier, and they are not making sufficient efforts to safeguard children from the marketing of unhealthy products.

Collectively, these copanies have sales of about $170 billion annually and account for nearly 30% of all U.S. food and beverage sales.

The report’s overall findings (the Index is a composite on a scale of 10):

Specific findings:

• Only 30% of their products meet criteria for “healthy,” 70% do not. This is only marginally better than in 2018 (see link to my post on this below).
• Companies say they have a greater focus on nutrition and health, but are not doing much about it.
• Only four companies are trying to improve the affordability of their healthier products.
• Companies say they are trying to protect children from the harmful effects of marketing unhealthy products, but they are not doing much about it.

ATNI recommends that companies fix these problems and that the government “support such changes by introducing more effective and enforceable standards and legislation that prevent the marketing of unhealthy products and push companies to apply reformulation strategies on their products.

I like this recommendation, despite its being couched as “encourage,” rather than as a demand:

Companies are encouraged to actively support (and commit to not lobby against) public policy measures in the US to benefit public health and address obesity as enshrined in the National Strategy on food, hunger, nutrition, and health

Comment: Results liket these come as no surprise.  To repeat: food companies are not social service or public health agencies; they are businesses with stockholders who demand returns on investment as the first priority.

Expecting companies to change products to make them less attractive or to stop marketing to children means asking them to go against their business interests.

Until companies are rewarded for focusing on social values, public health, and environmental sustainability, ATNI’s evaluations are unlikely to have much of an impact on corporate behavior.

Documents

• The press release
• ATNI US Index Executive Summary
• My post on the 2018 ATNI release
• Note: ATNI is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

***********

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

 

 

The big news in the plant-based food world last week was Beyond Meat’s retrenchment and legal hassles.   Here’s how these issues are being covered by the food business press.

• Beyond Meat lays off 200 employees and slashes its revenue outlook: The plant-based meat company, which is eliminating about a fifth of its workforce after cutting staff in August, said the latest job reductions can drive more sustainable growth.
• Beyond Meat to lay off 200 staff, shake up exec team, as it targets cash flow positive operations in late 2023:  Loss-making plant-based meat co Beyond Meat – which is currently squaring up to former co-packer Don Lee Farms in a trial in L.A. – has unveiled plans to lay off approximately 200 employees (19% of its global workforce) in a bid to cut costs and achieve cash flow positive operations within the second half of 2023…. Read more
• 64-strong witness list unveiled as Beyond Meat squares off with former co-packer Don Lee Farms in LA court: Former executive chairman Seth Goldman, CEO Ethan Brown, Mattson CEO Justin Shimek and a cluster of senior Beyond Meat executives, past and present, are listed among 64 potential witnesses in the plant-based meat co’s trial with former co-packer Don Lee Farms starting today (Oct 11) in Los Angeles…. Read more
• Beyond Meat’s corporate shakeup sees 3 exec departures, including suspended COO:  Doug Ramsey, who was arrested on assault charges last month, officially lost his job, and the CPG eliminated the position of chief global growth officer. Its CFO also announced his departure.
• Big Meat retrenches as meat alternatives lose their luster: The nation’s leading meat companies all got in on the action on meat alternatives, with investments in plant-based and cell-cultured meat startups and their own dedicated consumer brands. But with category sales weakening in recent months amid surging inflation, where do they stand today?… Read mor
• After billions in investment, plant-based meat is a branding catastrophe: There is zero differentiation or branding in the space; all the players are stuck in Motorola Land, going no further than saying “We are plant-based,” writes Adam Hanft.Read More  
• Plant-based products are globally growing but do they cater to all?  Plant-based foods such as meat and dairy alternatives have been around for many years, but they’re becoming more popular and of higher quality than ever…. Read more

Right now, this sector looks bleak, but who knows how this will play out.  Not me, for sure.

***********

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

 

 

The bookstore is on Broadway between Washington Place and Waverly Place, close to the Astor Place (6) and 8th Street (R, W) subway stops.  Admission is free and does not require registration.  I will talk about the book, answer questions, and be happy to sign any that are offered.  Should be fun!

The headline says it all: Kroger to acquire Albertsons for $24.6bn solidifying its position as #2 grocery retailer with 11.8% market share.

This will make Kroger second only to Walmart’s 17.1% share.

Take a look at what this means.

The Kroger Co. Family of Stores

• Baker’s
• City Market
• Dillons
• Food 4 Less
• Foods Co
• Fred Meyer
• Fry’s
• Gerbes
• Jay C Food Store
• King Soopers
• Kroger
• Mariano’s
• Metro Market
• Pay-Less Super Markets
• Pick’n Save
• QFC
• Ralphs
• Ruler
• Smith’s Food and Drug

Now add in the Albertsons Companies’ Family of Stores

• Albertsons
• Safeway
• Vons
• Jewel-Osco
• Shaw’s
• Acme
• Tom Thumb
• Randalls,
• United Supermarkets
• Pavilions
• Star Market
• Haggen, Carrs
• Kings Food Markets
• Balducci’s Food Lovers Market

All of these will now be Kroger’s.  Monopoly capitalism, anyone?

Kroger’s press release says:

Kroger has a long track record of lowering prices, improving the customer experience and investing in its associates and communities. Consistent with prior transactions, Kroger plans to invest in lowering prices for customers and expects to reinvest approximately half a billion dollars of cost savings from synergies to reduce prices for customers. An incremental $1.3 billion will also be invested into Albertsons Cos. stores to enhance the customer experience. Kroger will also build on its recent investments in associate wages, training and benefits. Kroger has invested an incremental $1.2 billion in associate compensation and benefits since 2018. The combined company expects to invest $1 billion to continue raising associate wages and comprehensive benefits after close.

Who will hold Kroger accountable for these promises?

It needs to be held accountable.

***********

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

 

 

The Alliance for Potato Research & Education is explicitly “Dedicated to advancing the scientific understanding of the role potatoes play in promoting the health of all people.”

As the Alliance explains:

Potatoes are a nutrient-rich vegetable and one of the top sources of potassium in Americans’ diets, yet they are often singled out as a food to limit. This recommendation is often based on misperceptions that eating potatoes is linked to increased cardiometabolic disease risk, even though potatoes contribute to overall fruit and vegetable consumption.  However, a newly published study in the Journal of Nutritional Science finds that advice may be unwarranted

Guess who sponsored that study.

• The study:  Potato consumption is not associated with cardiometabolic health outcomes in Framingham Offspring Study adults

• Conclusion: In this prospective cohort, there was no adverse association between fried or non-fried potato consumption and risks of T2DM/IFG, hypertension or elevated triglycerides.

• Funding: This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute …with additional support from the Alliance for Potato Research and Education. The funders had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article…The authors have declared that no conflict of interest.

Comment: We can argue about the effects of potatoes on insulin and blood sugar levels, a contentious issue because the ways they are cooked and prepared influence digestion of their starches to sugars and how quickly those sugars are absorbed.  But industry funding confuses the arguments, as it has a high probbility of inducing more than the usual level of bias into the results.  Much industry influence occurs at an unconscious level where it is unrecognized by rsearchers, so much so that they do not see it as a conflict of interest.  I think it is.

***********

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