Search results: natural

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.

A big question for discussion is whether plant-based meat alternatives are better for health and the environment than regulat meat.  Are they?  Here is one study.

Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products.  
Christopher J. Bryant.  Front Nutr.  2022 Jul 19;9:934438.   doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.934438. eCollection 2022.

Rationale:   There are strong reasons to move away from industrial animal agriculture for the good of the environment, animals, our personal health, and public health. Plant-based animal product alternatives (PB-APAs) represent a highly feasible way to reduce animal product consumption, since they address the core consumer decision drivers of taste, price, and convenience.

Method: This paper reviews 43 studies on the healthiness and environmental sustainability of PB-APAs compared to animal products.

Findings:  In terms of environmental sustainability, PB-APAs are more sustainable compared to animal products across a range of outcomes including greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and other outcomes. In terms of healthiness, PB-APAs present a number of benefits, including generally favourable nutritional profiles, aiding weight loss and muscle synthesis, and catering to specific health conditions.

Conclusion:  As more conventional meat producers move into plant-based meat products, consumers and policymakers should resist naturalistic heuristics about PB-APAs and instead embrace their benefits for the environment, public health, personal health, and animals.

Conflict of interest: Although there is no specific conflict of interest or funding related to this project, the author is an independent research consultant and works with alternative protein companies.

Comment:  You would think that plant-based meat alternatives would be better for the environment than beef but without an agreed-upon method for assessing environmental impact, much depends on researchers’ assumptions.  This literature review was done by a consultant who does research for companies making alternative-to-meat proteins.   His conclusion based on his study—the takeover of small plant-based meat companies by Big Meat is a Good Thing—is predictable from his conflicted interest.  I’d prefer an independent assessment of the environmental implications of these products.

***********

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

Last week, STAT News asked if I would write something about the FDA’s definition of “Healthy” for them.  I agreed because I was planning a blog post on it anyway (posted here).

I wrote a draft and had a great time working with a STAT editor, Patrick Skerritt, to fill in some missing pieces.  Here’s how it came out (with a couple of after-the-fact embellishments).

First Opinion: FDA’s plan to define ‘healthy’ for food packaging: Better than the existing labeling anarchy, but do we really need it?   STATNews, Oct. 7, 2022

The FDA has announced the set of rules it proposes to enforce for manufacturers to claim that a food product is “healthy.” The proposed rules are a lot better than the labeling anarchy that currently exists. But here’s my bottom line: health claims are not about health. They are about selling food products.

The FDA says that a “healthy” product must meet two requirements: It must contain a meaningful amount of food, and it must not contain more than certain upper limits for saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.

To illustrate the “healthy” claim, the FDA is also researching a symbol that food makers can use, and might be testing examples like these.

[Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2021-N-0336-0003]

Doing all this, the FDA says, would align “healthy” with the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and with the Nutrition Facts label that is printed on food packages.

This action is the latest in the FDA’s attempts to simplify food label information so it’s easier for consumers to identify healthier food choices. It is also an attempt to head off what food companies most definitely do not want: warning labels like those used in Chile, Brazil, and several other countries. These have been shown to discourage purchases of ultra-processed “junk” foods, just as they were supposed to, a message understood even by children or adults who cannot read. No wonder food manufacturers will do anything to prevent their use.

If we must have health claims on food packages, the FDA’s proposals are pretty good. They require any product labeled “healthy” to contain some real food (as opposed to a collection of chemical ingredients or, as author Michael Pollan calls them, “food-like objects”), and for the first time they include limits on sugars.

Here’s an example given by the FDA: To qualify for the “healthy” claim, a breakfast cereal serving would need to contain at least three-quarters of an ounce of whole grains and could contain no more than one gram of saturated fat, 230 milligrams of sodium and 2.5 grams of added sugars.

These proposed rules would exclude almost all cereals marketed to children.

But do Americans really need health claims on food products? You might think that any relatively unprocessed food from a plant or animal ought to qualify as healthy without needing FDA approval, and you would be right. But health claims aren’t about health. They are meant to get people to buy food products, not real foods like fruit, vegetables, grains, nuts, meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, or fish.

Food companies love the term “healthy” because it gets people to buy food products.

The history of “healthy”

How did we get to where the FDA needs to require a product to contain real food to be considered “healthy”? Blame KIND bars.

In 2015, KIND (then a small private company, but now owned by Mars) advertised its bars as healthy because they contained whole foods like grains and nuts. But nuts have more fat than the FDA allowed at the time for products to be labeled as “healthy.” The FDA warned KIND that its bars violated the rules for health claims.

KIND fought back. It filed a citizens’ petition arguing that even though nuts are higher in fat than the FDA allowed, they are healthy. The FDA could hardly argue otherwise — of course nuts are healthy — and it backed off. It permitted KIND to use the term and said it would revisit its long-standing definition of “healthy.” That was good news for KIND.

At the time, the FDA’s definition of “healthy” set upper limits for fat, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol; required at least minimal amounts of one or more vitamins or minerals; and said nothing about sugars. So the new FDA proposals break new ground in simplifying the nutritional criteria and in putting a limit on sugars.

Front-of-package symbols

These, too, have a long history with the FDA. In the early 1990s, when the agency was writing the rules for Nutrition Facts labels on food products, it tested public understanding of several prototype designs. As it happened, nobody could understand any of the samples very well, so the FDA picked the one that was the least poorly understood. Soon afterward, food companies and health organizations developed symbols that would allow buyers to recognize at a glance which products were supposed to be good for them.

By 2010, more than 20 such symbols were on food packages. The FDA commissioned the Institute of Medicine to do studies of front-of-package labeling. The Institute’s first report on the subject examined the strengths and weaknesses of all of the symbols cluttering up the labels of processed foods, and recommended that the FDA develop a single symbol that would cover just calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Why not sugars too? The Institute said calories took care of them.

But the Institute’s second report did include sugars. It recommended a front-of-package labeling system that would give food products zero, one, two, or three stars (or check marks) depending on how little they had of the undesirable nutrients.

This idea so alarmed food manufacturers that they quickly developed the Facts Up Front labeling system in use today.

This, in my view, is so obfuscating that nobody pays any attention to it. But this scheme, coupled with industry pushback, was all it took to get the FDA to drop the entire idea of a symbol that would tell people what not to eat.

Here we are a decade later with the FDA’s current proposal. This plan is strong enough to exclude huge swaths of supermarket products from self-identifying as “healthy.” Products bearing the “healthy” symbol will have to contain real food and be low in saturated fat, salt, and sugar, as called for by federal dietary guidelines.

The new rules won’t stop “healthy” products from being loaded with additives and artificial sweeteners. And the FDA won’t require warning labels for unhealthy products, which work better than other symbols. But these proposals are a marked improvement over the current situation.

And the FDA might do more. It could look into the idea of warning labels. It already promises to make a decision about the other ambiguous marketing term, “natural.” A decision on that one can’t come soon enough.

As for “healthy,” the FDA is seeking feedback on its proposals. Instructions for filing comments, which can be made until Dec. 28, 2022, are at Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims; Definition of Term “Healthy.”

I can’t wait to see what companies wanting to sell ultra-processed food products as “healthy” will have to say about this.

Marion Nestle is professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, author of the Food Politics blog, and author of the new memoir, “Slow Cooked: An Unexpected Life in Food Politics” (University of California Press, October 2022).

***********

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

The FDA has announced a proposed rule for a “healthy” claim on food packages.

It proposes to align “healthy” with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 and the Nutrition Facts label.

The proposal has two requirements for the “healthy” claim.  To make the claim, products must:

1. “Contain a certain meaningful amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (e.g., fruit, vegetable, dairy, etc.) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines.”
2. “Adhere to specific limits for certain nutrients, such as saturated fat, sodium and added sugars. The threshold for the limits is based on a percent of the Daily Value (DV) for the nutrient and varies depending on the food and food group. The limit for sodium is 10% of the DV per serving (230 milligrams per serving).?

Food comes first!  What a concept!  The FDA will only allow a “healthy” claim on foods, not ingredients.  It also will only allow the claim on foods that are quite low in saturated fat, salt, and sugars (with exceptions for real foods).

The press release gave an example.  To qualify,

A cereal would need to contain ¾ ounces of whole grains and contain no more than 1 gram of saturated fat, 230 milligrams of sodium and 2.5 grams of added sugars.

The FDA is also researching a symbol to illustrate the “healthy” claim.  In March, it proposed research to develop this symbol.  The proposal did not illustrate prototypes, but some examples were published by a law firm.  ConscienHealth also published them under the heading of “A new roadmap for marketing healthy-ish food”

I see several things going on here.

1.  Positive, not negative.  This says foods are healthy.  Choose this!
2.  It adds sugars to disqualifying ingredients.
3.  It heads off warning labels—“high in fat, sugar, salt”—like those in Chile, Brazil, and Israel (see, for example, a previous post).  Avoid those!
4.  It heads off ultra-processed warnings (although this will exclude most, if not all, ultra-processed products).
5.  It supersedes the FDA’s efforts in 2010 and 2011 to put zero, one, two, or three stars or check marks on products.

I love Ted Kyle’s “Healthy-ish.”  As I keep saying, health claims are not about health; they are about marketing.

Companies love health claims; they sell food products.  Everyone falls for them; it takes serious critical thinking to resist them.

The FDA’s proposal will make “healthy” claims difficult for many products currently marketed with a health aura (Antioxidants! Gluten-free! No carrageenan!).

The time for comments is now.  I can’t wait to see the ones from companies making ultra-processed foods.

Next from FDA: a definition of “Natural?”

************

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

Douglas Frantz & Catherine Collins.  Salmon Wars: The Dark Underbelly of America’s Favorite Fish.  Henry Holt, 2022.  (355 pages)

I was asked to do a blurb for this one.  Here’s what I said:

Salmon Wars is a deep dive into the damage caused by current fish-farming methods to ocean environments, wild fish and their habitats, and to the farmed fish themselves.  It is also a dismal account of the failure of governments to stop such practices.  Salmon farming needs reform.  Until it does, read this book, and you will never eat farmed salmon again.

As for what to do about the hazards of salmon farming—lice, pollution, reduction of wild salmon, escape from pens, requirement for feeder fish and the depletion of those stocks, the authors have three suggestions:

(1) Know the risks and rewards of eating farmed salmon and insist on more transparency.

(2) Take responsibility for insisting on better ways of raising farmed salmon.

And (3)

The third step is for governments to stop putting a thumb on the scale when weighing economic interests versus the public wellbeing.  Governments should take responsibility for protecting the environment and public health.  They should adopt strict curbs on the use of chemicals by salmon farmers.  They should require notification of all relevant authorities of every escape or suspected escape, and those reports should be made public.  Food labels should be thorough, accurate, and reflect how the salmon was raised…There must be similar global efforts to protect the public health and the welfare of salmon.

This is a hard-hitting book and, as you might expect, it’s gotten some pushback.

Saving Seafood, a group that “conducts media and public relations outreach on behalf of the seafood industry,” says “New ‘Salmon Wars’ Book Is Full of Fictions. Here Are the Facts.”  Here are a couple of examples:

FICTION: Farmed salmon are crammed into cages.

FACT: Salmon occupy less than 4 percent of a typical marine cage. Farmers intentionally keep stocking densities low so fish have room to swim, grow, and mimic natural schooling patterns.

Farmers take great care to ensure the well-being of their salmon. Fish are vaccinated against several diseases, and pristine marine cage conditions are ensured with proper siting, regular fallowing (leaving sites unused), underwater cameras, and diver inspections.

FICTION: Farmed salmon are doused with pesticides and antibiotics.

FACT: Antibiotic use on salmon farms is far lower than that of any other agricultural animal producing industry in the world. In the rare instances when treatment is necessary, it is prescribed and overseen by licensed veterinarians under the oversight of government regulators.

In 2012 I visited a salmon farm above the Arctic Circle in Norway’s and wrote a post about it.

That one looked pretty good.  Now?  Others?  Who knows?

My recommendation: Visit one if you can.  Short of that, read this book.  Than decide what you think are the facts.

Hundreds of reports of illness from eating Lucky Charms cereal have intrigued food safety experts.

The FDA is investigating, but being really cagey about it.

Everybody seems to know that reference number 1064 refers to Lucky Charms cereal.

The FDA has received 529 reports of adverse effects.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler has been following the situation.

Since late 2021, the crowd sourcing website iwaspoisoned.com has received 6,400 reports from people complaining of classic food poisoning symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea after eating Lucky Charms cereal. General Mills, the maker of the cereal, has said that is has investigated the situation and there is no apparent link between the reported illnesses and Lucky Charms.

The Washington Post quotes experts calling for a recall, Bill Marler among them.

Although, there has been no scientific proven link, be it chemical or an allergen, between the several thousand illnesses and Lucky Charms,” Marler said, “my advice to General Mills is to recall the product and reset its trust with the consuming public until more is known.

Is there a link?  Or is this just a matter of people getting sick, remembering they ate this cereal, and putting the two together—even though no cause-and-effect exists.

I am indebted to Politico Morning Agriculture (behind a paywall but try Twitter) for this riveting item: Major Seafood Dealer and Eight Individuals Indicted for International Wildlife Trafficking

The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Crimes Section, unsealed an indictment charging a major seafood distributor and eight of its employees and associates with smuggling, Lacey Act violations and conspiracy to violate the Endangered Species Act, stemming from their trafficking in large volumes of highly imperiled eels.

The mind boggles.

Who knew that eel poaching and smuggling are major wildlife trafficking problems.

With respect to European eels, exporting them has been illegal since 2010.  But wait.  The indictment gets better:

Despite this ban…the defendants conspired to unlawfully smuggle large quantities of live baby European eels out of Europe, to their eel-rearing factory in China. After rearing the baby eels to maturity, defendants’ Chinese facility would then slaughter and process the eels for shipping to the United States, to be sold as sushi products.

It ends with this caveat:  An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I’m due to be called for jury duty.  Is this what I’m in for?

The New York Times’ obituary for the late Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, “Orrin Hatch, Seven-Term Senator and a Republican Force, Dies at 88,” filled an entire page of the newspaper.  That’s how important he was.

I was surprised that the obituary said not one word about Senator’s Hatch’s responsibility for the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA, pronounced d’shay).  The purpose of this act was to boost the supplement industry, which is well represented in Utah, by taking it out from under the regulatory authority of the FDA.

As a reminder, DSHEA:

• Assumed that dietary supplements were safe.
• Essentially deregulated them by weakening the FDA’s regulatory power.
• Permitted structure/function health claims on supplements, (e.g., supports a healthy immune system), regardless of level of scientific substantiation.
• Labeled supplements with Supplement Facts rather than Nutrition Facts.
• Forced the FDA to take manufacturers to court if agency regulators had concerns about safety, misleading claims, or inconsistent contents.
• Caused the FDA to lose court cases on First Amendment grounds.

The results:

• The supplement industry expanded rapidly, achieving DSHEA’s purpose.
• You cannot be sure that what you are buying is actually waht the label says you are buying.
• You cannot be sure that claimed benefits have any science behind them.
• Food manufacturers demanded the right to make struture/function claims.
• Use of the First Amendment to protect commercial (rather than personal, political, or religious) speech has gotten stronger.

We have Orrin Hatch to thank for turning the supplement industry into one based on faith, not science.

Why would he do this?

The obituary suggests one possibility:

During the opioid crisis in 2015, he introduced a bill to narrow the authority of government regulators to halt the marketing of drugs by predatory pharmaceutical companies. It later emerged that he had received $2.3 million in donations from the drug industry over 25 years.

For a more direct explanation, check out this article about Senator Hatch from the New York Times in 2011, “Support Is Mutual for Senator and Utah Industry.“

“Senator Hatch — he’s our natural ally,” said Marc S. Ullman, a lawyer for several supplement companies. Mr. Hatch, who credits a daily regimen of nutritional supplements for his vigor at 77, has spent his career in Washington helping the $25-billion-a-year industry thrive….Mr. Hatch has been rewarded with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, political loyalty and corporate sponsorship of his favorite causes back home.  His family and friends have benefited, too, from links to the supplement industry.

Hatch’s efforts to deregulate supplements did no good for public health or trust in science.  As the obituary said,

But there were no political repercussions. The senator was re-elected in 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2006 and 2012, averaging nearly 65 percent of the vote.

Requiescat in pace.