­­­My most recent collection of items.

• Pets in Europe:  88 million households own pets, thereby creating an enormous market for pet foods.
• Pets in the U.S.:  Pre-pandemic, there were 77 million dogs and 58 million cats, at least those that can be counted.
• Global market for pet food:  it’s estimated at $75 billion.
• People love pets:  If anyone in the pet food industry still needed proof that humanization of pets was the foundation for the market’s ongoing growth, consider this: Results of a recent study show that the dietary routine of owners was among the top three reasons for why consumers chose certain types of dog food, particularly grain free.
• Pets and the Covid-15:  Cats and dogs might have gained the “Covid 15,” but new data reveals a pet obesity epidemic existed long before quarantine.
• Insects are the hot new ingredient in pet foods: Insect protein demand in pet food may be 165k tons by 2030.
• Raw pet foods are still a source of toxic Salmonella: A study on a deadly E. coli outbreak in the United Kingdom linked to raw pet food adds to the evidence of such products being a risk factor for human infections, according to researchers. In August 2017, four people were infected with related strains of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O157:H7. One person died after developing the… Continue Reading
• The FDA frequently recalls or withdraws pet foods: Recalls – of which there are three types – are actions taken by a firm to remove a product from the market. Recalls may be conducted on a firm’s own initiative, by FDA request, or by FDA order under statutory authority.

And one long read:

• What Will Become of the Pandemic Pets?  The New Yorker says “In a time of stress and isolation, we turned to them for comfort. Now it’s time to think about what owning animals really means.”

I came across this item too late to sign up for it, but I do want to comment on it.

As an aging person myself (aren’t we all), I never thought of myself as a market opportunity, but under late-stage capitalism everything is a market opportunity.

Here’s the item that caught my eye [my emphasis].

Healthy ageing – market opportunity: Healthy ageing is probably the biggest market opportunity for the food industry.  So why food and beverage products for seniors are hard to find on store shelves?  It’s a sensitive subject, that’s why. Nevertheless, don’t miss out on this opportunity! Find the right way to talk about targeted products for seniors and the right formulations to make a difference… click here 

My translation: Let’s make money making highly processed, fortified-with-vitamins products we can advertise as “better for you.”

As I always say, a “better-for-you” ultra-processed food is not necessarily a good choice for health, no matter how much money it makes for its manufacturers.

Let’s hear it for USDA.  It’s asking tough questions about its programs and paying attention to what it’s finding out.

It has just issues a report on barriers to eating healthfully on SNAP (formerly, Food Stamps).

The press release summarizes the report.

The study, Barriers that Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Allotments, conducted in 2018, finds that 88% of participants report encountering some type of hurdle to a healthy diet. The most common, reported by 61% of SNAP participants, is the cost of healthy foods. Participants who reported struggling to afford nutritious foods were more than twice as likely to experience food insecurity. Other barriers range from a lack of time to prepare meals from scratch (30%) to the need for transportation to the grocery store (19%) to no storage for fresh or cooked foods (14%).

An infographic displays this information.

The report comes in three parts:

• Summary
• Survey Findings from more than 5,000 SNAP participants between May and November 2018. 
• In-depth Interview Findings

From the interviews (page 52)

Overview

More broadly, processed foods—both those purchased at stores for home consumption and those eaten out—were seen as cheaper than healthier options…This perception was the same whether participants lived in urban or rural areas, had children or elderly in the household, or spoke Spanish or English.

Two interview excerpts

Just kind of life circumstances and it makes no sense to me that it is terribly cheap to eat like crap. Eating at [fast food ] every day is going to cost me $5 today and I would eat every day $5 a day but if I tried to go to [store] or some place that had good food and buy good food for a day, even just for myself, for $5, not going to happen. It’s going to be triple that or quadruple that or 10 times that depending on where you go.

Oh, just not processed. Not processed, not frozen. And I don’t really think carbs are very healthy myself, like breads and pastas, I don’t find necessary really. That’s mostly what you can afford, is the cheapest, for some stupid reason in stores, you know?

Policy options seem pretty obvious.  I hope USDA gives them a try.

By this time, a great many research studies have associated eating nuts—of any kind—with good health.  Nuts have fats and, therefore, calories (150-200 per ounce).

The nut industry would like to minimize concerns about fats and calories.  It funds research to demonstrate that nut fats are healthy (which they are) and that you don’t have to worry about the calories (which you do, depending on what else you eat).  Hence:

The study: Almond Bioaccessibility in a Randomized Crossover Trial: Is a Calorie a Calorie?  Nishi SK, et al.  Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2021;nn(n):1-12, Published April 11, 2021.

Methods: This is a clinical trial in which subjects with hyperlipidemia consumed about 1 or 2 ounces a day of almonds versus muffins with equivalent calories.

Results: “Almond-related energy bioaccessibility was 78.5%±3.1%, with an average energy loss of 21.2%±3.1% (40.6 kcal/d in the full-dose almond phase).”

Conclusion:  “Energy content of almonds may not be as bioaccessible in individuals with hyperlipidemia as predicted by Atwater factors, as suggested by the increased fat excretion with almond intake compared with the control.”

Comment #1: The authors went to a lot of expensive trouble to demonstrate what has been known for a long time: almonds as typically consumed have only about 80% of the calories listed in standard tables.  This is because some of the fat is excreted rather than absorbed.  Chewing is not as efficient as machine grinding in separating fat from fiber.  When nuts are machine ground, their fats are more fully released and their calories similar to values obtained in calorimeters.

So guess who paid for this?

Grant Support: …the Almond Board of California…[and several other sources].

Potential competing interests: Where to begin?  The list takes three full columns of printed page.  Several of the authors report grants or consulting arrangements with entities such as the Almond Board of California, American Peanut Council, International Nut & Dried Fruit Council (INC), International Tree Nut Council Research and Education Foundation, California Walnut Commission, Peanut Institute, and the International Tree Nut Council.  But authors also report funding relationships that seem irrelevant to this study, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Ocean Spray, the Saskatchewan & Alberta Pulse Growers Associations, and Beyer Consumer Care.  Even odder are reports of an honorarium from the USDA for a lecture; travel support from the Canadian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism to produce mini cases for the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA); and, most unnecessarily, a book about vegetarian diets published by the daughters of one of the authors.

Comment #2:  I think disclosure statements like these are disrespectful of the disclosure requirement.  In this case, because several of the authors have so many financial relationships with food and drug companies, a listing of the nut-industry connections would have sufficed.  These alone would make it clear that these authors have conflicted interests that might deserve consideration in interpreting the study results.

The Center for Digital Democracy has issued a report, Big Tech and Big Food.

The coronavirus pandemic triggered a dramatic increase in online use. Children and teens whose schools have closed relied on YouTube for educational videos, attending virtual classes on Zoom and Google Classroom, and flocking to TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram for entertainment and social interaction. This constant immersion in digital culture has exposed them to a steady flow of marketing for fast foods, soft drinks, and other unhealthy products, much of it under the radar of parents and teachers. Food and beverage companies have made digital media ground zero for their youth promotion efforts, employing a growing spectrum of new strategies and high-tech tools to penetrate every aspect of young peoples’ lives.

The full report is divided into five parts (annoyingly, there is no table of contents and page numbers are almost invisible):

1.  The data-driven media and marketing complex (starts on page 8).

Today’s youth are at the epicenter of an exploding digital media and marketing landscape. Their deep connection to technology and their influence on purchasing are fueling the growth of new platforms, programs, and services, and generating a multiplicity of marketing opportunities. Google has created a global business offering videos and channels that target children and other young people who are attracted by its entertainment and educational content.

2.  This describes how Big Food targets kids using digital media (page 17)

3.   This part talks about threats to kids’ health, privacy, and autonomy (page 38)

4.  The growing momentum for regulation (is it ever needed) (page 42)

5.  This section lays out a framework for creating a healthier digital environment for kids (page 47)

The report is chilling.  It makes cartoons on breakfast cereals look so last century.  I could not believe the sophistication of these digital marketing efforts, all aimed at getting kids to demand junk foods.

Some congressional leaders are on this.  They deserve support.

You don’t think this is an urgent issue?  Read the report.

Here are a few news stories about this report.

• https://www.campaignlive.com/article/fast-food-soft-drink-advertising-contributes-childhood-obesity/1715799
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-12/food-companies-tech-ties-pose-harm-to-kids-consumer-group-says
• https://thecounter.org/junk-food-ads-harm-childrens-health-online-privacy-social-media-coca-cola/ 
• https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/363184/advocates-call-for-new-curbs-on-junk-food-marketin.html

That’s my question when I see what food companies are trying to do to reduce the content of sugar and salt in their ultra-processed junk food products.

To put it another way, does making an ultra-processed food or beverage slightly better for you convert it to a good choice?

We can argue about this, but companies really are trying hard, as this collection of articles from FoodNavigator.com indicates.

Special Edition: Nutrition and reformulation strategies

Most shoppers say they want to reduce consumption of products that are high in fat, salt and sugar. But many struggle to cut HFSS foods and beverages from their diets and reformulation efforts often face the headwind of perceived quality issues. Meanwhile, the fortified food market in Europe is expected to see a CAGR of 5.2% through to 2025. While reformulation efforts take out the ‘baddies’ is there also an opportunity to add positive nutrients through fortification?

• What reformulation really looks like in 2021: ‘Reformulated products need to be better nutritionally and equally tasty, if not tastier’: With calls to reformulate food and drink products to reduce fat, sugar and salt, we explore: What influences prompt brands to reformulate? What does the process really entail? And can it be done successfully during a global pandemic?.. Read
• ‘No added sugar’: Fibre and stevia predicted to ‘shake up’ sugar reduction:  Fibre and next-generation stevia are expected to play key roles in sugar reduction as a growing number of manufacturers seek out ‘no added sugar’ claims, according to Mintel… Read
• How UK brands are reformulating to avoid the HFSS ad ban:  UK food brands are currently digesting planned government legislation coming next year which will prevent marketing and advertising of HFSS being shown on TV (pre-9pm) and online from 2022 and limit where these products can be placed in bricks and mortar stores… Read
• What does the future hold for reformulation?  With the impending publication of part two of the National Food Strategy in the UK, IGD convened major retailers, manufacturers, food service companies and members of the National Food Strategy team to discuss reformulation, the challenges, and opportunities. Here Hannah Pearse, Head of Nutrition and Scientific Affairs at IGD, shares an overview of the conversations from a series of roundtable discussions… Read
• Kellogg cuts sugar and salt across Europe and UK: ‘The process is trial and error’:  The Kellogg Company has pledged to remove at least 10% of sugars and 20% of salt from its children’s cereals across European and UK brands… Read
• Does the UK’s proposed junk food ad ban reduce the motivation to reformulate?  The Food and Drink Federation says UK plans to restrict in-store promotions of foods high in fat, salt and sugar will deter companies from developing lower sugar and fat alternatives… Read
• Cereal Partners Worldwide talks breakfast renovation: ‘Innovation can be less, rather than more’:  The joint venture between Nestlé and General Mills is taking a ‘dual strategy’ approach to cereal renovation that is ‘both reductionist and increasing’, says Gharry Eccles, Vice President UK and Oceania of Cereal Partners Worldwide… Read
• Snack sector looks to lentils, beans and insects as ‘health by stealth’ hits limit:  As the snack sector reaches its technological limits in cutting salt and fat from products, European manufacturers are accelerating reformulating efforts using lentils, beans, other vegetables — and even insects — as a way of meeting consumer demand for healthier snacking options… Read

The USDA’s Economic Research Service, back on the job, has the latest statistics on the availability of sugars in the U.S. food supply.

Availability means the amount produced plus imports less exports, per year, per capita.

It is not the same as consumption (availability is likely to be higher), but it is an accurate indicator of trends.

The chart shows:

• Availability of sugars peaked in about 1999 and has been going down ever since.
• The increase was almost entirely in corn sweeteners—high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the like.
• The rise in HFCS was due to its substitution for sucrose (the sugar in beets and cane), in soft drinks starting in the late 1970s.  Soft drinks account for close to half of available sugars.
• Cane and beet sugar (sucrose) fell with substitution of HFCS, but started to increase again as HFCS got a bad reputation.
• Total availability of all sugars is now around 120 pounds per person per year.

What does 120 pounds per capita per year mean?

• Calculation: 120 pounds per capita x 454 grams per pound divided by 365 days per year = 149 grams per day per capita (approaching 40 teaspoons)
• This means about 600 calories available from sugars per day per person (which, in turn, refers to every man, woman, child, and infant in the country).  This is a lot of sugars.

Current Dietary Guidelines say sugars should not exceed 10% of daily calories.  For diets of 2000 calories a day, that means no more than 50 grams of sugars (one gram of sugar = about 4 calories).

Therefore, the U.S. food supply provides at least three times the upper amount of sugars recommended.

Pretty much everyone would be healthier eating less sugar, if for no other reason than that they provide calories but minimal or no nutrients.

Their lack of nutritional value applies to sugars of all kinds, refined and unrefined, no matter their source: beets, cane, honey, sorghum, or maple trees.

The downward trend is in the right direction.

Kellogg has issued a new cereal in honor of gay pride month.

And here’s what’s on the back.

The side panel gives examples of pronoun options (he/him, she/her, they/them, or add your own).  The top panel is a wrist band on which you can write your own pronouns.

I collect cereal boxes and didn’t want to miss this one.  I could not find it in any of the supermarkets I’ve been to.  I bought this one online,.

But now that I have it, I am not sure what to make of it.

On the one hand: It’s a partnership with GLAAD.  It promotes acceptance, and opposes bullying.  Hard to argue with that.  It also recognizes the market power of the pride community—but to what end?

On the other: This is a sugary, ultra-processed cereal, aimed at kids, no less.

• The sugars: One serving has 12 grams of added sugars, accounting for 24% of the upper daily limit for sugars and 37% of the calories in this cereal.
• Ultra-processed: This is the term for food products that are industrially produced, bear little resemblance to the foods from which they were derived, are made with ingredients that can’t be duplicated in home kitchens, are formulated to be “addictive” (“You can’t eat just one”), and are highly profitable.  Overwhelmingly, research shows these products to be associated with excessive calorie intake, weight gain, and chronic disease.
• Marketed to kids: The cartoon characters signal this.  Kids’ cereals are brightly colored (e.g., Froot Loops), sugary, and marketed with cartoon characters.

Non-binary kids, like all kids, should be eating such cereals in small amounts, if at all.

I was curious to see what the press had to say about it—not nearly as much as I expected.

• Most reports described the cereal, without saying much about it beyond what was in the press release.
• Some evangelical groups were distressed, if not outraged.
• Reviews on Amazon are mixed.

From where I sit, Kellogg is using gay pride to market its cereals.  This is about marketing.  Period.