Nicolette Hahn Niman.  Defending Beef: The Ecological and Nutritional Case for Meat (revized and expanded second edition). Chelsea Green, 2021. 

This is an updated edition of Hahn Niman’s 2014 book, which I wrote about in October that year.  Then, it was titled Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production.

I did a blurb for the book when it first came out and it still holds for this new edition:

Issues related to the long-term health effects of red meat, saturated fat, sugar, and grains are complex and I see the jury as still out on many of them.  While waiting for the science to be resolved, Hahn Niman’s book is well worth reading for its forceful defense of the role of ruminant animals in sustainable food systems.

In my 2014 post, I said:

The subtitle says it all: “The Manifesto of an Environmental Lawyer and Vegetarian Turned Cattle Rancher.”

Really?

Really.  She’s not kidding.

As [my blurb] might suggest, I have a more cautious interpretation of the science she summarizes, but there are plenty of reasons why eating meat can help improve human nutrition, especially when the animals are raised as humanely and sustainably as possible, which the Nimans most definitely do on their beautiful Bolinas ranch. [Photos are here]

Vegetarians: does she convince you?

Let the debates begin.

Well, 7 years later the new edition focuses much more on arguments about the effects of beef production on climate change and whether plant-based meat alternatives are worth the trouble.

The big news:  Hahn Niman is no longer a vegetarian.

I may once have believed that if I followed a vegetarian diet, nothing would have to die for my meals.  I now see how wrong I was…My primary mission these past two decades has been helping, in whatever ways I can, build a more environmentally sound, nourishing and humane food system.  We have a long way to go.  I don’t urge people to eat meat.  But I certainly don’t urge refraining from it, either.  I encourage omnivorous eaters to seek well-raised meat.  Abandoning meat will not positively affect the food system and may diminish one’s health.  The greatest consumer impact will come from people who eat meat actually buying it from good sources. (p.244)

I am with her on all of that.

That meat has nutritional and ecological benefits is beyond dispute.  This books lays out her point of view about the reasons for these benefits in an especially thoughtful way that carefully considers the counter-arguments.

Whether you agree with her views or not, this is the book to read about these issues.

An additional observation in the fruit drink study I recently discussed was a reduction in purchases of 100% juice, probably because it is so hard to tell the difference without careful scrutiny of labels (hint: look for 100%).

100% juice is a better option than fruit drinks because it has a better balance of nutrients and no added sugars. But it is still sugary because so many pieces of fruit go into it [really, fruit is the best option].

The orange juice industry is worried about decreasing sales.

The worldwide market for juices is increasing.

The juice industry would like it to grow even faster.

I was interested to see juice marketing materials emailed to dietitians.

Want to take a guess as to who paid for these messages?

Hot summer temperatures combined with a population eager to get outside and get moving means risk of dehydration is high. In addition to water, consider including 100% juice as a healthy, nutrient dense beverage option. In addition to rehydration and increasing fruit intake, two new studies show 100% juice has many other health benefits.

1. A recent UK study published in Nutrients found moderate consumption of 100% fruit juice, which aligns with the US Dietary Guidelines, does not increase the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease or poor glycemic control. Furthermore, regular daily consumption of 100% juice, may confer health benefits related to vascular function and reduced blood pressure. Emerging evidence shows there may even be a positive impact on cognitive health. [Funding: This research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Fruit Juice Science Centre].
   [Funders: a consortium of orange producers, juice manufacturers and packaging companies based in Europe and Brazil under the umbrella of the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN)].

2. A second review study, published in Frontiers in Immunology, found that citrus juice, contains key nutrients and bioactive substances that help our immune system to work efficiently and reduce inflammation. [Funders: a consortium of orange producers, juice manufacturers and packaging companies based in Europe and Brazil under the umbrella of the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN)].

And how do we know this is all about marketing?  Try this Infographic:  Squeeze More Profits From Juices.

Reference: For a summary of research on the “funding effect”—the observations that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests and that recipients of industry funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence—see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

Fruit drinks, as opposed to 100% fruit juice, are a no-brainer.  They are heavily sugar-sweetened, and best consumed in very small amounts or not at all.

They are difficult to distinguish from 100% fruit juice.  Their labels make them look fruity and juicy.

So do their ingredient lists:

But these are juice concentrates and require translation: added sugars.  In this case, 11 out of the 13 grams per serving.

Public health advocates want to discourage parents from buying sugary beverages for their kids.  Here are the results of one such attempt.

• The study:  Countermarketing About Fruit Drinks, Alone or With Water Promotion: A 2019 Randomized Controlled Trial in Latinx Parents.  James Krieger, Taehoon Kwon, Rudy Ruiz, Lina Pinero Walkinshaw, Jiali Yan and Christina A. Roberto.  American Journal of Public Health, 28 Oct 2021.
• Method: Online messaging via Facebook groups using “countermarketing”—focusing on industry strategies rather than health messages.
• Result: A nearly 14% reduction in choosing fruit drinks.

As the accompanying editorial, Warning: Don’t Let the Beverage Industry Harm Your Kids, explains, 

Unlike general social marketing or other communications campaigns, countermarketing is designed “to reduce the demand for unhealthy products by exposing the motives of their producers and portraying their marketing activities as outside the boundaries of civilized corporate behavior”…Let’s put this good news to use by placing responsibility at the feet of the platforms and companies profiting from directly and incessantly targeting children with marketing the food and drink they should avoid.

If you would like to know how this works, here’s a toolkit for campaigns against fruit drinks.

One additional observation was a reduction in purchases of 100% juice, probably because it is so hard to tell the difference without careful scrutiny of labels (hint: look for 100%).

100% juice is a better option than fruit drinks (fruit is the best option), but still sugary because so many pieces of fruit go into it.

The juice industry is plenty worried about decreasing sales.  Marketing materials sent to dietitians reveal the concerns.  Guess who paid for these messages—and the studies.

Hot summer temperatures combined with a population eager to get outside and get moving means risk of dehydration is high. In addition to water, consider including 100% juice as a healthy, nutrient dense beverage option. In addition to rehydration and increasing fruit intake, two new studies show 100% juice has many other health benefits.

1. A recent UK study published in Nutrients found moderate consumption of 100% fruit juice, which aligns with the US Dietary Guidelines, does not increase the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease or poor glycemic control. Furthermore, regular daily consumption of 100% juice, may confer health benefits related to vascular function and reduced blood pressure. Emerging evidence shows there may even be a positive impact on cognitive health. [Funding: This research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Fruit Juice Science Centre].
   [Funders: a consortium of orange producers, juice manufacturers and packaging companies based in Europe and Brazil under the umbrella of the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN)].

2. A second review study, published in Frontiers in Immunology, found that citrus juice, contains key nutrients and bioactive substances that help our immune system to work efficiently and reduce inflammation. [Funders: a consortium of orange producers, juice manufacturers and packaging companies based in Europe and Brazil under the umbrella of the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN)].

And how do we know this is all about marketing?  Try this Infographic: Squeeze More Profits From Juices.

Reference: For a summary of research on the “funding effect”—the observations that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests and that recipients of industry funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence—see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has just issued its latest set of dietary guidelines aimed at preventing the leading cause of death in the United States: 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Because AHA guidelines apply not only to coronary heart disease but also to all other chronic disease conditions—and sustainability issues—influenced by dietary practices, they deserve special attention.

Most of these repeat and reinforce the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The two big differences in the recommendations:

• Clarifying protein recommendations: these include all sources but emphasize plant sources (#4)
• Including a new one: minimize ultra-processed foods (#6)

These recommendations are way ahead of the US Dietary Guidelines in recognizing how much ultra-processed foods contribute to poor health, and how important it is to minimize their intake.

Also unlike the US guidelines, these are unambiguous and easily summarized.

The statement is worth reading for its emphasis on two other points.

• This dietary pattern addresses problems caused by other chronic conditions and also has a low environmental impact.
• Following this dietary pattern requires much more than personal responsibility for food choices.  It requires societal changes as well.

The press release summarizes the problems in society that make following healthy diets so difficult, if not impossible:

• Widespread dietary misinformation from the Internet;
• A lack of nutrition education in grade schools and medical schools;
• Food and nutrition insecurity – According to references cited in the statement, an estimated 37 million Americans had limited or unstable access to safe and nutritious foods in 2020;
• Structural racism and neighborhood segregation, whereby many communities with a higher proportion of racial and ethnic diversity have few grocery stores but many fast-food outlets; and
• Targeted marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds through tailored advertising efforts and sponsorship of events and organizations in those communities.

As the statement concludes: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.”

Amen to that.

Comment: From my perspective, this statement thoroughly supersedes the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which—because they say nothing about ultra-processed foods , differential protein sources, sustainability, or doing anything to counter societal determinants of poor diets—were out of date the instant they appeared.

Some of the details of the AHA statement will be debated but its overall approach should not be.

The committee that put these guidelines together deserves much praise for basing its advice on today’s research and most pressing societal needs.

Additional AHA Resources:

• Spanish news release 
• Available multimedia is on right column of release link: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-look-at-nutrition-research-identifies-10-features-of-a-heart-healthy-eating-pattern?preview=288ef57763869cab946e725d341dbb63
• After Nov. 2, 2021, view the manuscript online.
• What kind of diet helps heart health?
• Eating walnuts daily lowered bad cholesterol and may reduce cardiovascular disease risk
• Eating more plant foods may lower heart disease risk in young adults, older women
• Sugar 101
• Follow AHA/ASA news on Twitter @HeartNews

I learned about this study from an article in FoodNavigator.com, “Baobab industry welcomes study linking the fruit to good gut health.”

The title raised the question, “Who funded this?”  Bingo, as it turns out.

Baobabs are enormous African trees that produce a highly fibrous fruit.

I can’t say it looks particularly yummy.  In fact, it is described as “floury, dry, and powdery” and works best as a powdered ingredient.

But the baobab industry?  Who knew such an entity existed?

It does.  Hence this study:

The study: A Pectin-Rich, Baobab Fruit Pulp Powder Exerts Prebiotic Potential on the Human Gut Microbiome In Vitro.  Martin Foltz, Alicia Christin Zahradnik, Pieter Van den Abbeele, Jonas Ghyselinck, Massimo Marzorati.  Microorganisms. 2021 Sep 17;9(9):1981.

Methods: Test tube mixing of baobab powder with colonic bacteria.

Results: Baobab fruit pulp powder boosted colonic acidification across three simulated human adult donors due to the significant stimulation of health-related metabolites.

Conclusions: Overall, Baobab fruit pulp powder fermentation displayed features of selective utilization by host microorganisms and, thus, has promising prebiotic potential.

Funding: The studies described in this manuscript were performed at the request of and were funded by Döhler, 94295 Darmstadt, Germany  Surprise!  This company makes baobab powder.

Conflict of interest:  M.F. and A.C.Z. are employees of Döhler. While M.F. participated in the design of the study, the interpretation of the data, and the revision of the manuscript, M.F. did not participate in the collection and analyses of data.

Comment: No food, product, or ingredient is too obscure to avoid industry attempts to demonstrate that it can be marketed as a “superfood” (see, for example, this product).

Reference: For a summary of research on the “funding effect”—the observation that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests but that recipients of industry funding typically do not recognize its influence—see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

Priya Fielding-Singh.  How the Other Half Eats: The Untold Story of Food and Inequality in America.  Little, Brown Spark, 2021.

I did a blurb for this book (some of it ended up on the cover)

How the Other Half Eats is a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered why Americans don’t eat more healthfully. Fielding-Singh achieved something remarkable in gaining the trust of families who then let her observe their daily food choices. Her book is a thoughtful, riveting, compassionate, and utterly compelling account of why eating healthfully is so difficult, especially for the poor. What’s more, she offers a superb example of why on-the-ground field research is invaluable for gaining a deep and nuanced understanding of the ways that our industry-driven and highly inequitable food environment affects real people on a daily basis.

What I found so amazing about this book was that Fielding-Singh actually talked to people about how they feel about their diets—and listened.  Her analysis is exceptionally thoughtful.  Some examples:

From page 253

It is one thing to be able to find and afford a head of cauliflower.  But it is another to want to buy that cauliflower, to choose to spend one’s money on that cauliflower (at the expense of other purchases), to have the time and tradition to cook that cauliflower, and to possess the patience to weather one’d child’s complaints and pleas for macaroni and cheese and soldier on to feed that cauliflower to one’s child.  Only a handful of parents I met had all of these things.

From page 255

Personal responsibility has never solved a public health problem or remedied an inequity.  Food is no exception…Many of the families I met had either done so or were trying to figure out how to eat more nutritiously with the resources they had.  But, largely due to the structures implemented by the food industry and federal government, most felt like they were fighting an uphill battle—and losing.

Page 259

Banning marketing to kids would give moms a fighting chance of being able to feed their kids what they want rather than what corporations push on them.  Currently, only those families with the most money, time, and bandwidth have a shot at prevailing against the industry—and even those families often struggle and even fail.  Protection from the food industry should be right granted to all families, not a privilege reserved for the few.

FAO says the world food price index is higher than it’s been in years, due to reduced harvests, fuel prices, climate change, and Covid-19.

According to the New York Times, the prices of foods in the U.S. are also up—and by 15 percent since early 2020.

Steak, ground beef for hamburger, and turkey are especially costly.

The increases are due to supply chain shortages and higher labor costs and there is little relief in sight. In fact, some economists think prices could rise even more, given the increase in energy prices.

These increases may be hard on consumers, but they are also hard on food banks.

A case of peanut butter that was $13 to $14 before the pandemic now costs $16 to $19…Green beans that used to retail for $9 a case now sell for $14.

BUT, the New York Times also reports:

Despite higher prices, McDonald’s, Kraft Heinz and Coca-Cola post solid earnings.

The Coca-Cola Company, McDonald’s and Kraft Heinz all reported quarterly earnings on Wednesday that were better than expected, despite continuing challenges with the global supply chain and pandemic restrictions in many parts of the world. The enormous scale of each business, as well as their ability to pass on price increases to consumers, appears to have helped them during a time of uncertainty.

Ironic, no?

I am not a litigious person and much prefer to stay out of the legal system.

But I am a big fan of Bill Marler, who represents victims of food poisonings, not least because his lawsuits against companies with sloppy food safety procedures should encourage them to clean up their processes.

I’m not sure what to think of NPR’s account of Spencer Sheehan’s 400 or so lawsuits against food companies for misleading labeling.

The one that triggered off the article is on behalf of a woman suing Kellogg over the number of strawberries in Strawberry Pop-Tarts.

Enriched flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, vitamin B1 [thiamin mononitrate], vitamin B2 [riboflavin], folic acid), corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, soybean and palm oil (with TBHQ for freshness), sugar, bleached wheat flour. Contains 2% or less of wheat starch, salt, dried strawberries, dried pears, dried apples, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, monocalcium phosphate), citric acid, gelatin, modified wheat starch, yellow corn flour, caramel color, xanthan gum, cornstarch, turmeric extract color, soy lecithin, red 40, yellow 6, blue 1, color added.

Some of his other cases:

Keebler and Betty Crocker and others over “fudge” cookies and baking mixes that contained no milkfat.

Frito-Lay alleging it didn’t use enough real lime juice in its “hint of lime” Tostitos.

Coors suggesting its pineapple-and-mango-flavored Vizzy Hard Seltzers are sources of Vitamin C “nutritionally-equivalent” to actual pineapples and mangos.

Snack Pack pudding — advertised as “made with real milk” — actually made with fat-free skim milk.

Many cases targeting vanilla products — soda, soy milk, yogurt, ice cream — that use synthetic vanilla or other flavors alongside or in place of the more expensive natural vanilla.

NPR says

Most of Sheehan’s suits, including the strawberry Pop-Tart cases, allege damages based on the so-called “price premium theory,” which says that products are sold at higher prices than they would have otherwise commanded had the companies marketed them honestly.

Are these cases frivolous or in the public interest?

I’m for anything that gets the makers of ultra-processed foods to advertise them for what they are, not for what they aspire to be.

Hat tip to Lisa Young for sending this one.