Tara Kenny, a postdoctoral researcher in Ireland sent me this one.

The paper: Perspective Nutrition research challenges and processed food and health. Michael J. Gibney and Ciarán Forde. Nature Food, 2022.

Purpose: “If public health nutrition is to consider the degree of food processing as an important element of the link between food and health, certain gaps in research must be acknowledged.”

Method: The paper compares and critiques differing classification systems for processed foods, emphasizes the physical and sensory aspects of food products as reasons for consumption, and suggests areas for further research.

Conclusion: “The NOVA recommendation that HPFs be avoided poses a considerable challenge, given that a wide body of evidence across the globe shows that almost two-thirds of all energy comes from HPFs…Finally, notwithstanding the opposition of NOVA to the reformulation of HPFs, the value of this approach is internationally recognized.”

Competing interests: “M.J.G. has engaged in paid and non-paid consultancy for a wide range of food companies that manufacture processed foods. He has provided online presentations on ultraprocessed foods to the staff of Unilever and Mondelez. C.G.F. is currently a paid member of the Kerry Health and Nutrition Institute.”

Comment: The paper is a critique of the term ultra-processed (the authors prefer Highly Processed Foods or HPF), of the NOVA classification system for levels of food processing, and of the idea that ultra-processed foods continue to remain in the category of ultra-processed even when reformulated.

Dr. Kenny provided a deeper analysis of the conflicts of interest inherent in this paper; she read the references to several statements in the paragraph that follows the subtitle, “First, do no harm”.

• Ample evidence exists to show that there are no differences in postprandial glucose or insulin response following the ingestion of breads, varying from wholegrain to white and to those with and without additives (Breen et al & Gibney, MRC Human Nutrition Research, Government Agency)
• Similarly, studies show that the nutrient intakes of infants fed on home-prepared infant and toddler foods are not materially different to those of infants fed on industrially prepared products with the exception of sodium, which was higher in the infants fed with home-prepared foods (Reidy et al, 2018 – lead author is head of Nutrition Science for Baby Food, Nestlé Infant Nutrition, Global R&D and leads the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Studies globally. Three additional authors are also Nestle employees).
• Breakfast cereals, normally served with milk, make a very important contribution to micronutrient intake (Gibney et al, 2018 – funded by Cereal Partners Worldwide and General Mills Inc.)
• The advent of low-fat spreads optimized for fatty-acid profile have contributed to a substantial reduction in the intake of saturated fatty acids (Li et al & Gibney).
• Beverages sweetened with artificial sweeteners help reduce the intake of added sugars. These filters should also include foods that are generally regarded as ‘treats’ that have a negligible population impact on nutrient intake (for example, ice cream and chocolate). For example, a study of chocolate intake in 11 European countries showed that the contribution of chocolate to added sugar intake averaged 5% (Azaïs-Braesco et al, funded by Danone Nutricia Research)…”.

She also provided a link to a much more detailed conflict-of-interest statement filed as a correction to another paper co-authored by Mike Gibney.

I’ve written frequently about ultra-processed foods and why I think the NOVA classification is so useful.  See, for example, this post (the classification system) and this one (Kevin Hall’s study).

Despite the opinions expressed in the Nature Food paper, reducing intake of ultra-processed foods seems like a really good idea.

The Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems has just issued a new report: A Regional Imperative: The Case for Regional Food Systems.

The Executive Summary

In food systems, ‘regional’ is larger geographically than ‘local,’ and also larger in terms of
functions: volume, variety, supply chains, markets, food needs, land use, governance, and
policy. A regional food system operates at various scales and geographies toward greater selfreliance. Thinking regionally provides the opportunity to frame food production, needs, and
economies in a larger context—within locales and regions, and across state borders, as well as
among and across regions, however they may be described and bounded.

The full report (discussion version, 254 pages)

This has a long list of requirements for regional food systems, among them:

• Provide more affordable, appropriate, good food options to mainstream markets.
• Encourage decentralization in markets, infrastructure, and governance.
• Build regionally relevant solutions around equity, justice, and stewardship.
• Develop new institutions and forms of governance.

This is one comprehensive report.  It covers definitions, history, what needs to be considered in developing a regional food system, constraints and challenges, references, and even an evaluation checklist.

This release of the report is a “discussion version,” on which authors Kathryn Z. Ruhf and Kate Clancy welcome comments pertaining to its treatment of race and racial equity in regional food systems. A final version will be released after a review team has integrated input into the report….Please contact the authors to share feedback:

Kathy Ruhf: kzruhf@verizon.net

Kate Clancy: klclancy@comcast.net

When I saw this headline—Beyond breakfast: How Kellogg’s used AI to evolve cereal marketing amid the pandemic—I wanted to know right away how Kellogg is using artificial intelligence to sell more breakfast cereal.

The big data found that now new consumption occasions for cereals have gone beyond breakfast – these are being used in proper recipes for cooking and baking, as a result of increased interest in home cooking and home baking during the pandemic.

Like what proper recipes?

So think of recipes such as fried calamari with Corn Flakes, or using Fruit Loops with pancakes.

Oh.  Hadn’t thought of that.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The World Health Organization has just published “Food marketing exposure and power and their associations with food-related attitudes, beliefs and behaviours: a narrative review”

This is an update of a review WHO published in 2009 on the extent, nature and effects of food marketing.

The update includes a review of studies from 2009 to 2020 of

• Where food marketing occurs
• How much there is,
• Which brands and products are marketed
• How they are marketed
• How consumers react to food marketing

The report, which covers digital and social media,  concludes

Food marketing remains prevalent

• It is especially prevalent where children are and what they watch on TV
• It predominantly promotes “fast food”, sugar-sweetened beverages, and chocolate and confectionery
• It uses a wide range of creative strategies  aimed at young audiences (celebrity/sports endorsements, promotional characters, games)
• Its exposure is positively associated with habitual consumption of marketed foods or less healthy foods

The report confirms what advocates have been saying for years

• Food marketing is pervasive
• Food marketing is persuasive
• Food marketing is bad for health

The bottom line: Food marketing, especially to children, must be stopped

As a member of Mayor Eric Adams’ Food Policy Task Force, I was sent a press release last week announcing two new food initiatives in New York City, and asking me to comment on them.

Mayor Adams issued two executive orders.

• Executive Order 8, Commitment to Health and Nutrition: Food Standards and Good Food Purchasing.  This sets standards for meals served by city agencies. It commits the city to Good Food Purchasing principles, which require transparency about how city agencies’ food procurements affect local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare, and nutrition.
• Executive Order 9, Promotion of Healthy Foods in City Publications and Advertising on City Property.  This requires that all promotional materials put out by agencies and advertisements on city property regarding food — to the extent practicable — feature healthy food.

My comment

The best way to encourage healthy eating is to make the healthy choice the easy — and the preferred — choice,” said Marion Nestle, professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, New York University, Emerita. “Mayor Adams’ executive orders are a terrific step toward creating a food environment that makes it easier for New Yorkers to eat better and stay healthy.”

I think it’s great that the Mayor cares about nutrition and health and is willing to do what he can to create a healthier food environment.  Let’s hope his actions have a big effect.

• The current version of the press release is here.
• The video of the press conference is here.

This study, produced by Tate & Lyle, was sent to me by a reader, but Tate & Lyle also sent me:

• A press release: “Fibre fortification could lower risk of heart disease and diabetes for 7 in 10 UK adults.”
• An infographic with the results of the study: “Benefits of Reformulating with Fibre.”

The press release worked.  FoodNavigator.com did a story with this headline: “Fibre fortification in everyday foods could lower risk of heart disease and diabetes”

A new study suggests that adding fibre to everyday foods – including baked foods, dairy products, soups, smoothies and dressings – would allow 50% more UK adults to reach their recommended daily consumption of fibre. This could in turn lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

I give FoodNavigator.com high marks for stating right up front who paid for this study:

New research from ingredie3nt supplier Tate & Lyle, published in Cambridge University Press’ British Journal of Nutrition, found reformulating everyday foods with added fibre could reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes for 72% of the UK adult population.

The study: Estimating the potential public health impact of fibre enrichment: a UK modelling study.  Kirstie Canene-Adams, Ieva Laurie, Kavita Karnik, et al.  Br J Nutr. 2022 Jan 7;1-7.   doi: 10.1017/S0007114521004827. Online ahead of print.

Conclusions: The fibre enrichment intervention showed a mean fibre intake of 19·9 g/d in the UK, signifying a 2·2 g/d increase from baseline. Modelling suggested that 5·9 % of subjects could achieve a weight reduction, 72·2 % a reduction in cardiovascular risk and 71·7 % a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes with fibre fortification (all Ps ≤ 0·05).

Conflict of Interest statement: Authors are employees of Tate & Lyle PLC (IL and KK) or Creme Global (BF, WG, SP) as indicated by our affiliations. KCA was employed by Tate & Lyle PLC at the time of research and writing the article and is now employed by Mars Wrigley. This work was funded by Tate & Lyle, London, UK which specialises in fibres and low-calorie sweetening ingredients used by food and drink producers worldwide. Creme Global is a company based in Dublin, Ireland which specialises in scientific modelling in the areas of food, nutrition and cosmetics.

Comment: Tate & Lyle collected data on what consumers currently eat and drink using the UK’s National Diet and Nutrition Survey.  Investigators applied statistical models to determine how fiber-supplemented food would change consumers’ diet and health.

My translation: Tate & Lyle employees added fiber to foods, predicted that if people ate foods with added fiber they would take in more fiber (duh), and found just that.

Tate & Lyle makes fiber supplements.  Are Tate & Lyle fiber supplements as good for health as the fiber found naturally in food?  That, alas, is beyond the scope of a modeling study.

Addition

Hugh Joseph sent along this video from Tate & Lyle.  It’s about all the good things T&L ingredients do for Jane’s diet.  Oh dear.

Corby Kummer sent me this ireport from the Food is Medicine Initiative (he is one of the authors).

This is an initiative of the Aspen Institute Food and Society Program, which aims to find practical solutions to food system challenges and inequities.

I’ve previously written about this program’s food worker safety guidelines.

Now, the Institute and its collaborators have come up with a Food is Medicine Research Action Plan.

The Plan begins with the premise that Food is Medicine interventions improve health and quality of life as well as curb health care costs.

Food is Medicine interventions:

• Medically tailored meals
• Medically tailored groceries
• Produce prescriptions

The report provides the background—the health implications of food insecurity, key federal nutrition programs, the history (with a a handy timeline), the existing research basis, and case examples—for these interventions.

The Action Plan is an agenda for the kind and quality of research that needs to be done to link these and other interventions to reduction of food insecurity and improved health.

• Researchers: this report has anything you need to write a grant to do research in this area
• Advocates: this report has whatever you need to justify action.

Food is Medicine Resources

• Website
• Research Action Plan 
• Webinar 
• Graphics 
• Toolkit

I love Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports.  Some member of Congress requests them and GAO resaearchers then get to work.

I particularly like the way GAO understates what its reports are about.

Try this, for example: Oversight of Future Supplemental Assistance to Farmers Could Be Improved

This program gave $23 billion to farmers during the pandemic.

Of this, 95% went to “nonspecialty crops” (translation: feed for animals and fuel for cars, aka Big Ag).

And hardly any of the money went to minority, new, or military farmers.

Leah Douglas, now working for Reuters, did the math.

• Collectively, socially disadvantaged, military, and beginning farmers got a combined $818 million across the two years,—3.6%
• Socially disadvantaged farmers  got $435.7 million—1.9% (they comprise 6.7% of farmers)
• Beginning farmers got $152.1 million—0.7% (they comprise 27% of farmers).
• Military veterans got $240.5 million—1% (they comprise 11% of farmers).

Comment: The USDA has a long history of discrimination against these groups.   It needs to make up for that.