Ben & Jerry’s is now owned by Unilever.

Here are its top-ten best-selling flavors:

1. Half Baked: unbaked cookie dough and baked fudge brownies.
2. Cherry Garcia: in the top three since its launch in 1987
3. Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
4. Chocolate Fudge Brownie: this contains brownies from New York’s Greyston Bakery, which provides jobs and training to low-income people in Yonkers
5. Tonight Dough: Jimmy Fallon’s second flavor; proceeds to SeriousFun Children’s Network
6. Strawberry Cheesecake
7. Phish Food: since 1997
8. Americone Dream: a partnership with Stephen Colbert, whose staff chooses the nonprofit its proceeds go to
9. Chunky Monkey: banana ice cream with fudge chunks and walnuts
10. Brownie Batter Core

Whether or not proceeds go to charity, these are commercial ice creams, and highly caloric, ultra-processed ones at that.

Here, for example, is the ingredient list for a Cherry Garcia.

CREAM, SKIM MILK, LIQUID SUGAR (SUGAR, WATER), WATER, CHERRIES, SUGAR, EGG YOLKS, COCONUT OIL, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CONCENTRATES (COLOR), COCOA POWDER, GUAR GUM, NATURAL FLAVORS, LEMON JUICE CONCENTRATE, CARRAGEENAN, MILK FAT, SOY LECITHIN.

And here’ the Nutrition Facts label for a pint.

The new serving size is 2/3 cup and you get three of those in the container at 340 calories each.  Eat the whole pint and you’ve done half your daily calories along with 78 grams of added sugars (oops).

Half-Baked has even more!

If ever a situation called for moderation, this one is it.

To continue the thene of yesterday’s post, check out this report from the Global Health Advocacy Incubator (an international organization that supports advocacy).

The report documents the food industry’s strategies to defeat warning labels on ultra-processed food products (UPP).

1. Protect the UPP industry’s reputation and brands through corporate washing;
2. Influence policies through multilateral bodies to delay implementation and threaten countries with legal and economic concerns;
3. Divert attention from its corporate responsibility on the damage to environmental and human health to blame individuals for their behaviors;
4. Imply that their products contribute to health, the environment, and society while blocking the development and implementation of healthy food policies; and
5. Seek loopholes in regulations to continue promoting ultraprocessed products.

For example, here is how strategy #5 was implemented in Mexico:

Here, also for example, is image #27:

What should civil society organizations be doing to counter industry tactics?

• Monitor and unmask industry practices
• Use legal strategies
• Avoid loopholes, gaps, and ambiguities when developing labeling  policies
• Demand transparency and no conflicts of interest

This report is exceptionally well documented, covers an enormous range of countries, and gives a quick but compelling overview of how the food industry operates internationally to product product sales.

• Full report click here.
• Executive Summary
• Report’s microsite:  advocacy examples recommendetions.
• Webinar: English, Spanish, Portuguese

Let’s start 2022 off with a review sent to me by a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

The review: Implementing the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Recommendations for a path forward. Sanders, L. M., Allen, J. C., Blankenship, J., Decker, E. A., Christ-Erwin, M., Hentges, E. J., Jones, J. M., Mohamedshah, F. Y., Ohlhorst, S. D., Ruff, J., &Wegner, J. (2021). J Food Sci. 86:5087–5099.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15969

Method: Based on a workshop aimed at developing strategies to promote adoption of dietary guideline recommendations.

Workshop funding: a grant from USDA with contributions from the Institute of Food Technologists.

Conflicts of interest: Mary Christ-Erwin is President and Owner of MCE Food and Agriculture Consulting and received an honorarium from the grant for moderating the meeting and panel and roundtable discussions. Julie M. Jones is a Scientific Advisor to USA Rice, Grain Foods Foundation, and the Quality Carbohydrate Coalition. John Ruff is an Investment Committee Member for Sathguru Catalyser Advisors Private Limited, the Asset Management Company of Innovation in Food and Agriculture Fund (IFA Fund) that invests in innovation-driven growth enterprises in the Food and Agriculture sectors, based in India. He is reimbursed for meeting fees and expenses related to attending committee meetings but has no investments in the fund. Lisa M. Sanders [Note: First author who wrote original draft] is the owner of Cornerstone Nutrition, LLC, a consultancy which has received funding from Kellogg Company, PepsiCo, and The Coca-Cola Company. Dr Sanders receivedwriting fees fromthe grant for development of this manuscript. JillWegner is an employee of Nestle. Jonathan C. Allen, Jeanne Blankenship, Eric A. Decker, Eric J.Hentges, Farida Y. Mohamedshah, and Sarah D. Ohlhorst have no conflicts to declare.

Comment: This workshop reflects a food industry perspective on the dietary guidelines.  Some of its reocmmendations make sense.  Others raise eyebrows, or should.

• The first recommendation: “Emphasize health benefits…gained through cooking at home.
• My favorite recommendation: “Leverage the current interest in science to debunk myths about food processing by demonstrating the similarity of techniques used to make foods at home and at scale in food industry, to show how food processing can contribute to the solution.”

This review is an excellent example of why the food industry needs to firmly excluded from nutrition policy discussions (for details on why, see my book, Unsavory Truth).

My strongest criticism of the 2020 dietary guidelines is that they fail to say anything about the health benefits of reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods (the junk food category strongly associated with excessive calorie intake, weight gain, and poor health).

Yet here we have a published review in a food science journal arguing for debunking “myths” about food processing.

They are not myths.  Evidence is abundant.

See, for example:

• Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, et al.  Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.  Public Health Nutr; 2019;22(5):936–941.
• Lawrence MA, Baker PI.  Ultra-processed food and adverse health outcomes.  BMJ. 2019 May 29;365:l2289.  doi: 10.1136/bmj.l2289.
• Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake [errata in Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):226 and Cell Metab. 2020;32(4):690]. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67–77.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008.

I’m going to take next week off (unless some crisis occurs).  This will be my last post in 2021.  Stay healthy over the holidays.  See you on January 3 2022.

In the meantime, enjoy this announcement from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome’s traditional Christmas lighting illuminates SDGs.

The SDGs, of course, are the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which I’ve written about previously.

FAO says:

The official ceremony to inaugurate the 25 meter high fir on Piazza Venezia in Rome’s historic city centre took place today as the Italian capital launched the initiative “Christmas in Rome – Let’s give the gift of a sustainable city”

…Each gift package displays a QR code which, when scanned by visitors with their smartphones provides them with information compiled by FAO experts about concrete actions each of us can take to make our lifestyle more sustainable and start building a better future for the planet, our city and its people.,..Additional content is also accessible to visitors both in Rome and all around the world via a web App and through the FAO website.

How’s that for wishing us all a useful, productive, and optimistic holiday season.  May the new year bring us all peace, prosperity, and healthy and sustainable food systems.

How about let’s end this year with some cheery news.

The Global Health Advocacy Indicator (“Changing Policies to Save Lives”) has produced a series of international case studies of successful advocacy for a healthier food environment.

• How Advocates Protected Heart Health in Brazil: Brazil approved strict limits on trans fat in food following strategic advocacy led by local civil society organizations supported by the Global Health Advocacy Incubator (GHAI). Our new case study describes the process and lessons learned. Read the case study
• A Victory for Healthy Food Policy in Argentina: Argentina passed a Front of Package Labels bill with some of the strongest standards in the region in October, thanks to incredible advocacy by civil society organizations FIC Argentina, Fundeps, SANAR and Consumidores Argentinos.  Read more
• How Advocacy Communications Supported Healthy Food Policy in Colombia: Colombia adopted a new Front of Package Labels law in August. We asked our civil partners how they how they used communications to advance advocacy and mobilize public support. Read the responses from Red PaPaz, Colectivo de Abogados, Dejusticia and FIAN Colombia. Read the responses
• Trans Fat Policy Win in Bangladesh: In November, Bangladesh set new trans fat limits in line with international best practices. “The approval of trans fat regulations in Bangladesh illustrates the power of civil society advocates to impact public health policy,” said Muhammad Ruhul Quddus, GHAI’s coordinator of cardiovascular health work in Bangladesh. Read more
• Case Study: Trans Fat Elimination in the Philippines: Read our new case study about the advocacy that led the Philippines to mandate the elimination of industrially produced trans fat from its food supply in July.  Read the case study
• Resource: Legal Issues in the Design and Implementation of Public Health Measures: Our new resource, Legal Issues in the Design and Implementation of Public Health Measures, describes how our legal experts evaluate public health policies and legislation. Download the Guide
• Report: Behind the Labels: Big Food’s War on Healthy Food Policies:  Our new report describes how the ultra-processed food and beverage product industry is attempting to derail effective front-of-package warning label policies, and shares key activities public health advocates are using in response. View the report
• New Case Study: Protecting Heart Health in India: Our new case studies describes how Indian advocates supported new national limits on trans fat, a particularly harmful food component.  Read the case study

Advocacy can succeed when it is done well.  It’s working in all these countries.  We could do that too!

If you want to know what’s wrong with the US food system, consider corn.

• Hardly any of it is grown for food.
• Most—half—goes for animal feed, domestic or exported.
• One-third goes for ethanol fuel.

Let’s start with the big picture, courtesy of the National Corn Growers Association (FSI means Food/Seed/Industrial).

The USDA explains how much of total corn production ends up as ethanol fuel.

What’s wrong with this?  See The Conversation: The US biofuel mandate helps farmers, but does little for energy security and harms the environment.

If you’ve pumped gas at a U.S. service station over the past decade, you’ve put biofuel in your tank. Thanks to the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, almost all gasoline sold nationwide is required to contain 10% ethanol – a fuel made from plant sources, mainly corn.

With the recent rise in pump prices, biofuel lobbies are pressing to boost that target to 15% or more. At the same time, some policymakers are calling for reforms. For example, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced a bill that would eliminate the corn ethanol portion of the mandate.

This article is worth serious attention for its discussion of the effects of corn growing on profits, carbon-neutrality, indigenous populations, and agriculture policy in general.

Or, to summarize in a corn cob (thanks to Mother Jones):

It’s hard to know where to begin to comment on this.

• Many people in the world do not have enough to eat.
• It would be better for people and the planet if we in industrialized countries ate less meat.
• It would be better for people and the planet if we used fewer cars.

Growing corn for animal feed and automobile fuel makes no sense for human health or that of the enviroment.

I was amazed to see this announcement from the White House, of all places: “Recent Data Show Dominant Meat Processing Companies Are Taking Advantage of Market Power to Raise Prices and Grow Profit Margins.”

In September, we explained that meat prices are the biggest contributor to the rising cost of groceries, in part because just a few large corporations dominate meat processing. The November Consumer Price Index data released this morning demonstrates that meat prices are still the single largest contributor to the rising cost of food people consume at home. Beef, pork, and poultry price increases make up a quarter of the overall increase in food-at-home prices last month.

The big concern is consolidation—monopoly power—in the meat industry.

Four large conglomerates control approximately 55-85% of the market for pork, beef, and poultry, and these middlemen were using their market power to increase prices and underpay farmers, while taking more and more for themselves…their gross profits have collectively increased by more than 120% since before the pandemic, and their net income has surged by 500%. They have also recently announced over a billion dollars in new dividends and stock buybacks, on top of the more than $3 billion they paid out to shareholders since the pandemic began.

The bottom line?

The meat price increases we are seeing are not just the natural consequences of supply and demand in a free market—they are also the result of corporate decisions to take advantage of their market power in an uncompetitive market, to the detriment of consumers, farmers and ranchers, and our economy [bold face in original].

Will the Biden Administration be able to do anything about this level of monopoly power?  Stay tuned.

Two studies of the role of nuts in health.

I.  This one comes from ObesityandEnergetics.org’s “Headline vs. Study.”

Headline: Maximum Wellness: Walnuts are a Life-Extension Food:  “Looks like your [sic] nuts not to include walnuts in your diet. For more information and to read this study…go to maxwellnutrition.com, where you can find top wellness and nutrition products made in the United States – shipped to your door.”  [Comment: Clearly, we are dealing here with marketing]

Study: Association of Self-Reported Walnut Consumption with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality and Life Expectancy in U.S. Adults. Maximum Wellness nor Causation Necessarily Established.  Liu, X.; Guasch-Ferré, M.; Tobias, D.K.; Li, Y.  Nutrients 2021, 13, 2699. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/nu13082699

Conclusion: A greater life expectancy at age 60 (1.30 years in women and 1.26 years in men) was observed among those who consumed walnuts more than 5 servings/week compared to non-consumers.  Higher walnut consumption was associated with a lower risk of total and CVD mortality and a greater gained life expectancy among U.S. elder adults.  [Comment: association, not causation, and the difference is small].

Conflict of interest: The last (senior?) author reports having received research support from California Walnut Commission, but states that ” The funder has no role in the design and conduct of the study, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the preparation, review, or in the decision to publish the results.”  [Comment: That’s what they all say, but research often demonstrates otherwise, as I review in my book Unsavory Truth].

And now for the second:

II.  Association of nut consumption with risk of total cancer and 5 specific cancers: evidence from 3 large prospective cohort studies.  Zhe Fang, You Wu, Yanping Li, Xuehong Zhang, Walter C Willett, A Heather Eliassen,1Bernard Rosner,
Mingyang Song, Lorelei A Mucci,and Edward L Giovannucci.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 114, Issue 6, December 2021, Pages 1925–1935, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab295

Conclusion: In 3 large prospective cohorts, frequent nut consumption was not associated with risk of total cancer and common individual cancers.  [Comment: What? An industry-funded study that finds no benefuts?]

Funding: Supported by the California Walnut Commission and Swiss Re Management Ltd (to YL),… and NIH grants U01 CA167552 (to LAM and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study), UM1 CA186107 and P01 CA87969 (to the Nurses’ Health Study), and U01 CA176726 (to AHE and the Nurses’ Health Study II). The funding sources did not participate in the study design; or
collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Here’s how the authors explain their highly unusual no-benefit result:

Given the scarcity of available high-quality data, our findings add to current evidence to more precisely determine the relation between nut consumption and cancer risk. So far, the population based evidence has not been strong enough to conclude that nut consumption is protective against total cancer and these 5 common cancers. Future studies on other cancer sites are still needed to examine the benefits of nuts on cancer development.

Really?  Why?  Do the authors not believe their own data?  Their findings ought to settle the matter and encourage the authors to move on to more significant research.  “More research needed” keeps the California Walnut Commission busy.

Research funded by food companies always requires a degree of skepticism, no matter what the results.