I saw this full page ad in the New York Times last week, and did not have a clue what it was for.

Politico Morning Ag to the rescue.

Daily Harvest, an up-and-coming plant-based frozen food maker that’s been valued at more than $1 billion, says it plans to engage on food issues in Washington.

The young company’s opening salvo? Projecting several large billboard-type images onto USDA’s headquarters in D.C. over the weekend, including one that read: “Big Food, Bite Me.” The projections accompany full-page ads in The New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

The ad worked.  I went right to the Daily Harvest website.

Daily Harvest is on a mission is to make it *really* easy to eat more fruits + vegetables every day. From seed to plate, we’re committed to a better food system, one that prioritizes human and planetary health. We are transforming what we eat, what we grow, and how we grow it — one crop (and box) at a time.

Oh.  They sell food products.

The website lists them in great detail.  The photos and descriptions make them look fresh and delicious (but they are frozen).

I looked up the Chickpea and Coconut Curry (“Tastes like Madras veggie curry”), 489 grams, 560 calories, $11.99.

organic chickpeas, water, organic cauliflower, organic sweet potato, organic spinach, green chickpeas, organic cashew butter, organic peppers, organic tomato paste, organic ginger puree, organic coconut cream, organic cilantro, organic garlic puree, himalayan sea salt, organic madras curry powder (organic turmeric, organic coriander, organic cumin, organic fenugreek, organic mustard seed, organic black pepper, organic ginger, organic cinnamon, organic chili pepper, organic allspice), organic lime juice, organic moringa leaf powder, organic onion powder, organic coriander seeds, organic black pepper, organic cinnamon, organic cloves.

Obviously, I haven’t been paying attention to what’s happening with online ordering.

Also obviously, I need to.

This company has been around for five years, and plenty has been written about it.

• Behind The Brand: Daily Harvest
• Forbes: In The Time Of Coronavirus, Daily Harvest Is Reinventing Mealtime For A Generation That Hates To Cook
• How Daily Harvest Earned $250 Million in Revenue in Just 5 Years of Business
• Bloomberg: Startup Daily Harvest Reaches Unicorn Status With $1.1 Billion Valuation

I wonder how the frozen meals taste?

I will have to order something and find out, not least because I intend to include a chapter on online ordering in the updated edition of What to Eat.  I’ve just started working on it, and can’t wait to get to this chapter!

If you want to know what preoccupies the FDA, takes up its time, and keeps it from giving food safety the attention it needs, try this for a burning issue: Revocation of the Standard of Identity for French dressing.

Why would the FDA go to all this bother (and it looks like a lot of bother?

Because it was petitioned to do so by the Association for Dressings and Sauces (ADS).

If, like me, you had never heard of this trade association,

it represents manufacturers of salad dressing, mayonnaise and condiment sauces and suppliers of raw materials, packaging and equipment to this segment of the food industry.

Background: Standards of Identity

These date back to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. They say what a food product must contain, in what proportions, and, sometimes, how it must be manufactured. Foods called things like ‘milk chocolate,’ ‘bread’ and ‘ketchup’ have standards of identity.  Because some of these standards date back 80 years, the FDA has called for comments on modernizing them.

When the FDA extended the comment period, it explained the goals for updating Standards of Identity:

• Protect consumers against economic adulteration;
• Maintain the basic nature, essential characteristics and nutritional integrity of food; and
• Promote industry innovation by giving manufacturers the flexibility to produce healthier foods.

The French Dressing standards

Check this for level of effort over more than 70 years.

In the Federal Register of August 12, 1950 (15 FR 5227), we established a standard of identity for French dressing. We later amended that standard of identity in the Federal Registers of May 10, 1961 (26 FR 4012), February 12, 1964 (29 FR 2382), February 1, 1967 (32 FR 1127 at 1128), May 18, 1971 (36 FR 9010), and November 8, 1974 (39 FR 39554), to allow the use of certain ingredients in French dressing. We also re-designated the French dressing standard of identity as § 169.115 (21 CFR 169.115) (42 FR 14481, March 15, 1977).

The Association for Dressings and Sauces complained—in its January 1998 petition— that nonstandardized pourable salad dressings such as Italian, Ranch, cheese, fruit, and peppercorn, have proliferated as have those reduced in fat, “light,” and fat-free. Because of this variation, and because consumers now expect French dressing to contain tomato-derived ingredients, be reddish-orange color, and sweet, the French dressing standard of identity “no longer serves honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.”

It took more than 20 years, but the FDA now agrees.

Commentary

Ted Kyle of ConscienceHealth.org, who always has thoughtful and interesting things to say about food issues (even when we disagree), asks a good question: Does Anybody Care What’s in French Dressing?  He points out that standards protect the integrity of real as opposed to ultra-processed foods.

The New York Times quotes food historian Ken Albala:

“I can picture the people at Kraft sitting down at a board meeting and the chief marketing guy saying, ‘Do you know the sales of French dressing have dropped off by x and y?’ ” Professor Albala said that the change could allow food companies to revamp their recipes for French dressing as a way to try to boost sales.

 The Times also noted:

In response to the F.D.A.’s announcement of the change on Twitter, some people mocked the agency on Wednesday and said that it should concentrate more on its regulatory role in the coronavirus pandemic. The agency said in the newly published rule that it had received at least one comment as part of its review that questioned its priorities.

My point precisely.

Thanks to Daniel Bowman Simon for pointing me to this one.

The study: Effect of Standardized Grape Powder Consumption on the Gut Microbiome of Healthy Subjects: A Pilot Study.  Jieping Yang, et al.  Nutrients. 2021 Nov; 13(11): 3965. doi: 10.3390/nu13113965

Methods: Study subjects had to eat 46 grams a day of grape powder (the equivalent of two daily grape servings) for 4 weeks.  Their microbiomes and serum cholesterol levels were compared to those observed during a baseline 4-week period.

Conclusions: “In conclusion, grape powder consumption significantly modified the gut microbiome and cholesterol/bile acid metabolism.”

Funding: This research was funded by California Table Grape Commission.

Conflicts of Interest: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Comment: The authors see no conflicts of interest but they accepted funding from the Grape Commission for the study.  California grape producers issue requests for research proposals to demonstrate the health benefits of grapes using grape powder, so I’m guessing the authors applied for this funding.  As I explain in my book, Unsavory Truth, industry influence on research outcome is well documented, but often unrecognized by recipients.  Funders typically get what they pay for.  Does grape powder duplicate the nutritional benefits of grapes?  Hard to say.  Are any of these results clinically important?  Ditto.

Check out this new report from the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, an alliance of foundations devoted to using “our resources and networks to get sustainable food systems on the poltical, economic, and social agenda.”

The Politics of Knowledge: Understanding the Evidence for Agroecology, Regenerative Approaches, and Indigenous Foodways

Working with 17 contributing teams representing geographic, institutional, sectoral, gender, and racial diversity, the compendium is anchored in debunking the most common narratives about the future of food, addressing questions about yield, scaling potential, and economic viability….For an overview of this work, featuring case studies, stories, video, and audio from around the world, check out this multimedia interactive. Discover powerful and compelling evidence that food systems transformation is possible — and already happening.

Other resources on this site include an interview with me: EVIDENCE, POLITICS AND THE FUTURE OF FOOD, for example:

LB: In your opinion, what’s the role of philanthropic funders and donors in transforming food systems and how can they best activate a research and action agenda that is focused on political and social justice, the right to food, and food sovereignty? 

MN: The goals of food system transformation have to be to eliminate hunger, reduce the effects of obesity, and greatly reduce the impact of agriculture and food consumption on climate change.  The best way to do that is to begin by asking the people who are most affected by these problems about the kinds of changes they would like to see, and then fund programs to effect those changes.  That may sound obvious, but hardly anyone actually works that way with communities.

I received a notification of the output of a research team at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), which did an evaluation of local soda taxes. Its products and resources are available at UIC Policy, Practice and Prevention Research Center (P3RC).

Among these are research briefs summarizing the available evidence base of U.S. sweetened beverage tax studies.

1. Chriqui JF, Pipito AA, Asada Y, Powell LM. Lessons learned from the adoption and implementation of sweetened beverage taxes in the United States: A narrative review. Research Brief No. 119. Policy, Practice and Prevention Research Center, University of Illinois Chicago. Chicago, IL. June 2021.
2. Powell LM, Marinello S, Leider J. A Review and Meta-analysis of Tax Pass-through of Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes in the United States. Research Brief No. 120. Policy, Practice and Prevention Research Center, University of Illinois Chicago. Chicago, IL. July 2021.
3. Powell LM, Marinello S, Leider J, Andreyeva T. A Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Local U.S. Sugar-sweetened Beverage Taxes on Demand. Research Brief No. 121. Policy, Practice and Prevention Research Center, University of Illinois Chicago. Chicago, IL. August 2021.
4. Marinello S, Powell LM. A Review of the Labor Market Impacts of Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes in the United States. Research Brief No. 122. Policy, Practice and Prevention Research Center, University of Illinois Chicago. Chicago, IL. September 2021.
5. Leider J, Oddo VM, Powell LM. A Review of the Effects of U.S. Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Substitution to Untaxed Beverages and Food Items. Research Brief No. 123. Policy, Practice and Prevention Research Center, University of Illinois Chicago. Chicago, IL. November 2021.

An excellent source of information about soda taxes is available at Healthy Food America

• Research Watch
• Soda tax toolkit
• Compare tax policies
• Map the movement
• Publications

And let’s not forget the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO)’s terrific report on soda taxes in Latin America.

On January 1, the USDA’s useless rules for labeling bioengineered (BE) foods, those formerly known as genetically modified (GMOs), went into effect.

Will the new rules help you figure out which items in the produce section or anywhere else in the store have been genetically engineered?

Not a chance.

I am particularly curious about what’s in the produce section.  It’s easy enough to know which genetically modified foods have been approved by the FDA; the FDA has a website for this purpose.

But just because they’ve been approved does not necessarily mean they are in production and in your supermarket.

To know which ones are genetically modified, it would be nice to have labels.

Instead, we have the results of USDA’s obfuscation, as I discussed in a blog post two years ago: Goodbye GMO, Hello Bioengineered: USDA publishes labeling rules.  It’s worth repeating:

On January 3, the White House issued a press release to announce “The Biden-⁠Harris Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain.

This came with a Fact Sheet explaining the plan and its rationale.

Even as farmers’ share of profits have dwindled, American consumers are paying more—with meat and poultry prices now the single largest contributor to the rising cost of food people consume at home.

The plan provides $1 billion to increase independent processing capacity: For example, 50 beef slaughter plants owned by just a handful of companies currently process nearly all the cattle in the United States.

• Independent processing plants–$375 million
• Financing for independent producers: $275 million
• Back private lenders to independent processors–$100 million
• Worker development–$100 million
• Technical assistance–$50 million
• Inspection support for small producers–$100 million

How this happened

Let’s start with a report from the White House Competition Council, which sets the tone by beginning with this quote from President Biden:

Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism; it’s exploitation.  Without healthy competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want and treat you however they want.

The Council’s goal for reducing competition in agriculture: Lowering food prices for consumers and increasing earnings for farmers and ranchers.

The 2021 timeline

July 9  President Biden issues Executive order on promoting competition in the American economy

Robust competition is critical to preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy. Yet over the last several decades, as industries have consolidated, competition has weakened in too many markets, denying Americans the benefits of an open economy and widening racial, income, and wealth inequality…Consolidation has increased the power of corporate employers, making it harder for workers to bargain for higher wages and better work conditions…Consolidation in the agricultural industry is making it too hard for small family farms to survive.

July 9  The White House presents a Fact sheet on the Executive order

The markets for seeds, equipment, feed, and fertilizer are now dominated by just a few large companies, meaning family farmers and ranchers now have to pay more for these inputs. For example, just four companies control most of the world’s seeds, and corn seed prices have gone up as much as 30% annually.

September 8  The White House issues a report Addressing Concentration in the Meat-Processing Industry to Lower Food Prices for American Families  [Note: this contains many useful charts]

December 10  The White House finds Recent Data Show Dominant Meat Processing Companies Are Taking Advantage of Market Power to Raise Prices and Grow Profit Margins  [Note: I did a blog post on this one]

The meat-processors are generating record profits during the pandemic, at the expense of consumers, farmers, and ranchers…the prices the processors pay to ranchers aren’t increasing, but the prices collected by processors from retailers are going up…At the same time, we have seen some of the top firms in this industry generate record gross profits and their highest gross margins in years.

The Reactions

The North American Meat Institute: Government Intervention in Markets Will Not Help Consumers, Producers 

For the third time in six months, President Joe Biden and his Administration announced the same plans to spend $1 billion to fund government intervention in the market in an attempt to increase prices livestock producers receive while blaming inflation on private industry…The Biden Administration continues to ignore the number one challenge to meat and poultry production: labor shortages.

Washington Post Opinion: Why President Biden is suddenly talking about meat

Now that President Biden has unveiled a plan to combat monopolistic practices in the meat industry, much of the media coverage is treating this effort as little more than an attempt to mitigate the political fallout of inflation by blaming large corporations for it…But the truth is that the White House plan only makes passing mention of inflation. Its primary focus is on the power dynamics of an industry that puts small faWilrmers and ranchers at the mercy of large meatpacking corporations, and the role this plays in causing higher prices and creating other problems.

The Counter: Can $1 billion really fix a meat industry dominated by just four companies?

The Biden administration’s newly announced investment in small, independent processors is intended to level the playing field. But without addressing the root causes [larger plants, union busting] of market concentration, critics fear it may have limited impact.

The Meatrix: the 2.5-minute trailer provides an excellent summary of the issues.  It also comes with a Take Action page

The Hagstrom Report’s list of links

• The White House — Readout of President Joe Biden’s Event with Farmers, Ranchers on his Action Plan for a More Competitive Meat and Poultry Supply Chain
• (video) — Roundtable on Promoting Competition and Reducing Prices in the Meat Industry
• Remarks by President Biden During a Virtual Meeting to Discuss Boosting Competition and Reducing Prices in the Meat-Processing Industry
• What They Are Saying: Bipartisan Members of Congress, Key Agriculture Stakeholders Applaud President Biden’s Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain
• Justice Department and Agriculture Department Issue Shared Principles and Commitments to Protect Against Unfair and Anticompetitive Practices
• Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks at the Roundtable on Promoting Competition and Reducing Prices in the Meatpacking Industry

Comment: Will any of this do any good in reducing the monopolistic power of Big Meat?  This depends on anti-trust legislation, and for that we must wait and see.  And where is Big Chicken in all of this?  Most of the attention here is on beef production, but the unfair practices of chicken companies need just as much attention.

Thanks to Lynn Ripley for this gem.

Who knew that herbal dietary supplements are now marketed for cows, with claims that they improve milk quality and yield and reduce methane emissions at the same time?  Not me, for sure.

The producer of this supplement says feeding a dairy cow one gram a day will produce these benefits. That’s not much for a 1500-2000 pound dairy cow, even feeding the gram a day for at least four weeks (which is what the manufacturer says you have to do).

This, to say the least, is hard to believe.

As evidence, the manufacturer, Agolin Ruminant, cites three studies of its supplement.   Want to take a guess as to who funded all three of them?  Bingo!  Agolin Ruminant.

My first question: what is in Agolin Ruminant that is so powerful that only one gram a day will produce measurable benefits?

This question is not easy to answer.

The manufacturer’s statement of product information says only:

AGOLIN RUMINANT L is a carefully balanced combination of essential oil compounds in their natural / nature-identical form. All active substances are of high purity and are accepted for use under current European animal feed and human food legislation.

In the meta-analysis summarized below, the authors say:

The main active compounds of this product are food grade and chemically-defined plant extracts including coriander (Coriandrum sativum) seed oil (up to 10%), eugenol (up to 7%), geranyl acetate (up to 7%) and geraniol (up to 6%) along with some preservatives such as fumaric acid.

Those account for 30% of what’s in the product.  The other 70%?  A mystery.

This supplement is a feed additive.  Animal feed products do not require the level of ingredient disclosure required for dietary supplements.  The manufacturer says all ingredients are either FDA-approved or Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).  All are plant extracts (available from cloves or geraniums, for example).   Great.  I’d like to know what they are.

The manufacturer points to an endorsement from the Carbon Trust for the value of this product for reducing methane emissions.

This opinion is based on academic references, published scientific papers and field reports and joins the conclusions of the independent meta analyses from A. Belanche et al.

Oh dear.  The Carbon Trust did not do its homework.  The article by Belanche et al, is anything but independent.

Here are the key studies attesting to the purported benefits of this supplement for cows, starting with Belanche et al.

I.  A Meta-analysis Describing the Effects of the Essential oils Blend Agolin Ruminant on Performance, Rumen Fermentation and Methane Emissions in Dairy Cows. Alejandro Belanche, Charles J. Newbold, Diego P. Morgavi, Alex Bach, Beatrice Zweifel and David R. Yáñez-Ruiz.  Animals 2020, 10, 620; doi:10.3390/ani10040620

Conclusion: This meta-analysis combining 23 experimental and farm studies across 10 different countries indicated that supplementation of lactating dairy cows with the essential oils blend Agolin Ruminant® (at 1g/d per cow) exerted positive effects on milk production whereas it decreased enteric methane emissions in comparison to un-supplemented cows. These effects mostly appeared after an adaptation period of approximately 4 weeks of treatment and consisted in an increase in fat and protein corrected milk suggesting an improved feed utilization.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: This study was supported by Agolin SA (Bière, Switzerland).

Conflicts of Interest: Author B.Z. was employed by the company Agolin SA but had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the meta-analysis. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Comment:  Really?  Even though the authors cite support by Agolin SA?

II.  The Impact of Essential Oil Feed Supplementation on Enteric Gas Emissions and Production Parameters from Dairy Cattle Angelica V. Carrazco, Carlyn B. Peterson, Yongjing Zhao, Yuee Pan , John J. McGlone, Edward J. DePeters and Frank M. Mitloehner.  Sustainability 2020, 12, 10347; doi:10.3390/su122410347

Conclusion: Cows supplemented with Agolin versus the control had less methane intensity (g/period/kg
energy-corrected milk (ECM); p = 0.025).

Funding: This study was funded by Agolin (Agolin SA, Bière, Switzerland) and by Feedworks USA Ltd. (Ohio, USA).

Conflicts of Interest: The sponsor played no role in the execution and interpretation of the data and preparation of the present manuscript. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

III.  Evaluation of Agolin®, an Essential Oil Blend, as a Feed Additive for High Producing Cows.  Peter Williams1, John Clark, Kelly Bean  Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 11, 231-237. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2021.112018

Conclusion: The trial showed that Agolin assisted in improving production parameters of economic importance to dairy producers.

Conflict of Interest: Mr. John Clark and Mr. Peter Williams market Agolin in the United States of America. Both were involved in the design but not the analysis of data or interpretation of results.

Comment

These are industry-funded supplement studies designed to sell a supplement of dubious benefit (my interpretation) to dairy producers to convince the public that they are doing all they can to reduce methane emissions.

The supplement doesn’t cost much per dose, but there are lots of dairy cows that have to be given the supplement for at least four weeks.

Without even getting into the details of the measurement difficulties or the overall science, two things are particularly troubling:

• The lack of transparency about ingredients
• The lack of a convincing mechanism of action

Call me skeptical.  I don’t see this supplement as a solution to the methane emission problem caused by ruminants.