I have a long-standing interest in pet food (see Feed Your Pet Right, and Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine) and in conflicts of interest in research (see Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat).  Knowing of both, a reader, Teresa Reinhardt, alerted me to this one.

The study:  Investigation of diets associated with dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs using foodomics analysis.  Caren E. Smith, Laurence D. Parnell, Chao-Qiang Lai, John E. Rush & Lisa M. Freeman.  Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 15881 (2021).

Purpose: to identify specific pet food ingredients associated with Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs.

Methods: Metabolomic profiling of 25 diets associated with canine DCM and 9 diets not associated with DCM.

Results: “Four diet ingredients distinguished the two diet groups (peas, lentils, chicken/turkey, and rice). Of these ingredients, peas showed the greatest association with higher concentrations of compounds in 3P/FDA diets [the ones associated with DCM].“

Funding:  “This work was funded in part by Nestlé Purina PetCare and the Barkley Fund. This work was funded in part by United States Department of Agriculture project number 8050-51000-107-00D, and this entity had no part in the design of the experiments, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, nor in composing the manuscript.”

Conflicts of interest: “In the last 3 years, Dr. Freeman has received research funding from, given sponsored lectures for, and/or provided professional services to Aratana Therapeutics, Elanco, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Nestlé Purina PetCare, P&G Pet Care (now Mars), and Royal Canin. In the last 3 years, Dr. Rush has received research funding from, given sponsored lectures for, and/or provided professional services to Aratana Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elanco, IDEXX, Nestlé Purina PetCare, and Royal Canin. None of the other authors has any competing interests to declare.”

Comment:  DCM is a common heart disease affecting dogs, with a prevalence that exceeds 50% in some breeds (e.g., Doberman Pinschers). More than 1100 cases have been reported to the FDA.

Despite endless speculation, its cause is unknown.  Much attention has focused on one or another dietary deficiencies or specific components (e.g., grains).  As the authors explain:

The diets reported to be associated with DCM often are marketed as “grain-free” and often contain certain ingredients that became part of commercial foods relatively recently (e.g., pulses, potatoes, and sweet potatoes) and lack others (such as rice or corn). Most of the ingredients that are included in the associated diets are also found in human diets, but dogs often eat them in even higher quantities because most dogs eat a single commercial pet food, rather than a variable mixture of multiple foods as humans do.

I think there three issues need further discussion.

(1)  Grains. Some pet owners believe that dogs should not eat grains. They buy pet foods that do not contain them.  This study identified grains only in the pet foods that were not associated with DCM.  Ms. Reinhardt also sent a link to a commentary from someone who questions this finding and raises other critical points about the study.  Dogs are fully capable of digesting grains and grains have been used safely in pet foods for decades.  The FDA describes the association of DCM with on its website.  What’s needed to resolve the peas question is a long-term (years, not months) trial of diets with and without peas.  The pet food industry has no incentive to pay for something like that.

(2)  The funding effect.  Nestlé Purina PetCare [no relation] paid for the study, and two of the authors consult widely for pet food companies.  Grains are inexpensive pet food ingredients and it is to Nestlé’s interest to have evidence demonstrating that grains do no harm.  How much influence did this company have over the research?  The conflict of interest statement is oddly worded.  The USDA funder is stated to have stayed out of the study, but the statement does not seem to apply to Nestlé, suggesting company influence.

(3)  Pet food research funding in general.  This study had some USDA funding, but government funding for pet food research is rare.  Most pet food research is funded by pet food companies, and most focuses on taste preferences.  Remarkably little research is designed to answer questions about which diets are better than others—a big issue because most pets eat commerical pet foods designed to take care of their complete nutritional needs.

This study identified peas as most strongly associated with DCM.  Pea protein is a main ingredient in plant-based meat alternatives.  It would be good to know more about the dietary effects of peas and pea proteins.

If nothing else this study demonstrates why pet food research matters.  We only have one food system, and pet food is very much a part of that system.

Ana Eliza Port Lourenço & Priscila Vieira Pontes. Eating at School: Reflections from Brazil.  Editora CRV, 2021.

To the ever expanding library of books on school food, this one is a welcome addition.  It aims to improve school food in Brazil, but has plenty of information relevant to everywhere else.

The book is short—just 88 pages—but covers diet and kids’ health, regulation of school food, barriers to eating healthfully in school, and what to do to overcome them in short chapters.  These have important information in boxes like this one.

Imagine!  Brazil has laws governing sales and use of junk food in schools.

The reality, however, is a challenge.

I heard about this book when I was asked to do a blurb (endorsement) for it.  I was happy to.  Here’s what I said:

For anyone who has kids in school or who cares about what kids eat, Eating at School is essential reading.  It is a warm, reality-based, and entirely practical guide to why school food should set a healthy example, and how to approach fixing it when it doesn’t.   The authors understand what schools and caretakers are up against and provide all the evidence anyone needs to make healthy school food a priority.

Addition, 11-8-21

At some point, this book will be listed on Amazon.com.  In the meantime, if you would like to order it but get stuck on the website, contact this address for help: logistica@editoracrv.com.br

Digital marketing, especially when targeted to children, is a rising source of concern and for well-documented reasons.

Two reports provide the data.  The big issue?  Digital marketing promotes unhealthful eating.

I.  From the World Health Organization’s Regional Office in Europe: Digital Food Environments Factsheet

Digital technologies are becoming integrated to varying degrees into everyday life across the 53 countries of the WHO European Region. The increase in digital technologies can increase the convenience of food and prepared meals. A recent unrepresentative survey of 10 European countries found that every fifth meal was consumed outside of the home, with 80% from commercial outlets. The influence of digitalization on dietary behaviour, however, is not well understood, raising questions about its influence on the health and nutrition of adults and children.

II.  From the U.S. Center for Digital Democracy comes Big Food, Big Tech, and the Global Childhood Obesity Pandemic

The full report

Some of the largest food and beverage corporations—including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Pepsi—have, in effect, transformed themselves into Big Data businesses, acquiring specialist firms, establishing large in-house operations, and hiring teams of data scientists and technology experts to direct these systems. With these enhanced capabilities, they can more effectively engage in ad targeting—whether on the leading platforms or through their own mobile apps.

The Executive Summary

A growing body of academic research has documented the increasing presence of unhealthy food promotion in digital media, as well as clear patterns of youth engagement with major brands, and influences on health behaviors.

The Press Release

Tech platforms especially popular with young people—including Facebook’s Instagram, Amazon’s Twitch, ByteDance’s TikTok, and Google’s YouTube – are working with giant food and beverage companies, such as Coca Cola, KFC, Pepsi and McDonald’s, to promote sugar-sweetened soda, energy drinks, candy, fast food, and other unhealthy products across social media, gaming, and streaming video. The report offers fresh new analysis and insight into the most recent industry practices.

Comment: All this calls for regulation, of course.  Any chance of that coming our way?

The best way to add unnecessary calories to your diet is to snack.

Snacks are often ultra-processed junk foods; they add calories in ways you don’t notice (“you can’t eat just one”).

Their sellers’ intention is to get you to eat them and not notice.  These are hugely profitable products.

Here are a few recent items about selling snack products.

Will eating “healthier” snacks help you avoid “Covibesity” [referring to pandemic weight gain, I guess]?  Not if they encourage you to take in more calories than you need.

Will eating sustainable snacks make you healthier?  I got an e-mail from a marketer at Mondelez telling me that the company is focusing on sustainable snacks and that a “Mondelez exec also just made presentation at Alliance Bernstein conf. where he discussed there will be more invest in digital marketing personalization to drive sales” [Sustainable snacks have calories, and increased sales mean increased calories].

How about starting your snacks in the morning?  Hershey, America’s largest confection company, is trying to gain market share by rolling out products designed for morning consumption. “We see this as a potential growth lever and way for us to potentially capture more total snacking occasions across all dayparts,” In a press release, the company declared, “Let’s face it, we’re already having morning dessert anyway, so the Reese’s brand decided to make it official. With new Reese’s Snack Cakes, Reese’s fans can enjoy a delicious combination of chocolate and peanut butter creme without having to wait until lunch.”

Or, you can just eat candied cereal:

The majority staff of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis has issued a scathing report: “Coronavirus Infections and Deaths Among Meatpacking Workers Were Nearly Three Times Higher than Previous Estimates.”

Newly obtained documents from five of the largest meatpacking conglomerates, which represent over 80 percent of the market for beef and over 60 percent of the market for pork in the United States—JBS USA Food Company (JBS), Tyson Foods, Inc. (Tyson), Smithfield Foods (Smithfield), Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (Cargill), and National Beef Packing Company, LLC (National Beef)—reveal that coronavirus infections and deaths among their meatpacking workers were substantially higher than previously estimated.

The report’s main findings:

• At least 59,000 meatpacking workers were infected with the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic—almost triple the 22,700 infections previously estimated by the Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN).
• At least 269 meatpacking workers lost their lives to the coronavirus between approximately March 1, 2020 and February 1, 2021—over three times higher than what was previously estimated by FERN.

• Certain meatpacking plants saw particularly high rates of coronavirus infections during the first year of the pandemic. For example, 54.1 percent of the workforce at JBS’ Hyrum, Utah plant contracted the coronavirus between March 2020 and February 2021.
• Across companies, Tyson saw 29,462 employee infections and 151 employee deaths, and JBS saw 12,859 employee infections and 62 employee deaths.
• Coronavirus Outbreaks in Meatpacking Plants Disproportionately Impacted Minority Workers
• The full extent of coronavirus infections and deaths at these meatpacking companies was likely much worse than these figures suggest.
• OSHA made a political decision not to issue regulatory standards that might require meatpacking companies to take actions to protect workers.

Recall that meatpacking workers were among the first to get sick from Covid-19, causing

• People in their communities to become ill
• Plant closures
• Meat shortages
• Meat companies to succeed in inducing President Trump to issue an executive order to keep the plants open.

The report confirms that Covid-19 in meatpacking workers was and is a national tragedy and scandal, a direct result of corporate consolidation and capture of government.

The report’s recommendations to meatpacking plants, government agencies, and Congress can’t come soon enough.

I first learned of this study from a headline in the newsletter, BakeryAndSnacks.com: “Swedish RyeWeight study confirms bread can actually aid weight loss.”

Swedish researchers have found that breakfasting on rye bread significantly reduces appetite, resulting in 16% fewer calories consumed at lunch. What’s more, the suppression of appetite continued well into the afternoon

This seemed worth a look.  Here’s it is.

The study: A hypocaloric diet rich in high fiber rye foods causes greater reduction in body weight and body fat than a diet rich in refined wheat: A parallel randomized controlled trial in adults with overweight and obesity (the RyeWeight study).  Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.  Volume 45, October 2021, Pages 155-169.

Methods: Subjects with overweight or obesity consumed a weight-loss diet that contained either high fiber rye products or refined wheat products for 12 weeks.

Results:  Participants in the rye group lost 1.08 kg body weight and 0.54% body fat more than the wheat group, and their C-reactive protein was 28% lower.  There were no consistent group differences on subjective appetite or on other cardiometabolic risk markers.

Conclusion:  Consumption of high fiber rye products as part of a hypocaloric diet for 12 weeks caused a greater weight loss and body fat loss, as well as reduction in C-reactive protein, compared to refined wheat. The difference in weight loss could not be linked to differences in appetite response.

Sources of support: Formas, grant no.: 2014-00542. Barilla and Lantmännen pro-vided additional funding for the study (8% of total study budget each) and provided the intervention products.

Conflict of interest: RL is the founder of the Nordic Rye Forum, which is a research and dissemination platform for research related to rye and health that includes academic institutions as well as institutes and food industry with interest in rye across the Nordic region. The forum and its activities are funded by the industrial partners. RL is the PI of several projects funded by several cereal industrial companies. Such funding is used to carry out scientific studies. RL receives no salary, honorary, or by any other means has any personal economic benefits from industrial collaborations. Remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Comment: The industry-funded Nordic Rye Forum has an interest in promoting rye consumption.  Its industry partners are listed here.  Two of them helped fund the study.  They must have appreciated the results.

Once again, the issue here is the potential for unconscious bias under the influence of industry funding.

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.

Halloween is about one thing only: candy.

Candy has a place in diets, just not a big one—added sugars are best consumed at no more than 5% to 10% of calories (for many people, that’s 100 to 200 calories).  It doesn’t take much candy to get to those numbers.

Consumer Reports has a helpful report on what 100 calories looks like: 13.6 candy corn kernels (see note at end) and 2.3 Hershey’s miniatures.

The candy industry doesn’t think you eat enough.  Candy, it says, fuels the U.S. economy.

Making chocolate, candy, gum and mints, our industry plays an important role in the U.S. economy. We create good-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector in the U.S., and support thousands of additional American jobs as we sell our products in the marketplace, and source our ingredients, packaging and transportation. Additional jobs, known as induced jobs, are supported through the re-spending of wages throughout the supply chain.

Not only that, but candy is an essential part of health and wellness lifestyles (the candy industry’s at least):

The National Retail Federation predicts that this fall “consumer spending on Halloween-related items is expected to reach an all-time high of $10.14 billion, up from $8.05 billion in 2020.” Of this total, spending on candy is estimated to reach $3 billion, up from $2.14 billion.

Trick or Treat?  Enjoy the Halloween weekend.

A note on candy corn

It would never occur to me that anyone would care, but how’s this for candy-industry research:

While there is some debate about the best way to enjoy this classic Halloween candy, most Americans say they enjoy the whole piece of candy corn at once (52%), while 31% of people start at the narrow white end and 17% of people start with the wider yellow end.

It’s not easy to track the food politics of Cannabis.  New edible and drinkable products are entering the market all the time, and the FDA still hasn’t gotten around to issueing regulations that anyone can understand.

I’ve been getting email PR for drinkables, for example:

• All-natural Wavze CBD Water Enhancers; CBD water is the new wave of consuming cannabinoids, made by infusing water with CBD particles. The water-soluble CBD plays into bioavailability, allowing the product to be absorbed more efficiently and adding versatility…Nanotechnology found in Wavze with particles as small as .01-100 nanometers, on the other hand, has proven to improve nutrient delivery…Available in three flavors – lemonade, coconut and lime, dragonfruit [in shot-size bottles]…Price: $25.00 (10mg squeeze bottle).
• CBD sauces:  These include things like Loud Grandma CBD Chili Crisp Oil, advertised as “a little fruity and funky…not crazy hot, but it packs a flavorful punch when used on leftover rice or spooned over scrambled eggs. Each teaspoon is a 10-milligram dose of CBD;” Potli’s CBD Feel Good Honey, “crafted with raw, wildflower honey harvested in California and infused with 10 milligrams of CBD per teaspoon…Maybe try it in a Gold Rush?; and Hot Sloth CBD Hot Sauce made with white miso paste, fermented plum, dragonfruit, habanero and 15 milligrams of CBD per teaspoon.
• CBD from orange peels: A different CBD story:  A new CBD made from orange peel could signal a breakthrough for the industry and offer access that was once unimaginable…. Read more

But the market may not be doing all that great.  Theft and fraud are major concerns:

• Does a drop in CBD sales signal dwindling consumer interest, or is it a classic ‘crossing the chasm’ moment?  With US retail sales of cannabidiol-infused foods, beverages and supplements declining sharply in the past year and some early-adopters souring on the ingredient after experiencing lackluster ‘results,’ some players in the space are discontinuing their CBD products or formulating new ones without it. 
  
•  Thieves are stealing California’s scarce water. Where’s it going? Illegal marijuana farms:  As drought grips most of California, water thefts have increased to record levels. Thieves tap into hydrants, pump water from rivers, and break into remote water stations and tanks.

So is lack of regulation

• The passage of the 2018 farm bill has created an unregulated THC market, and Congress is not rushing to fix it. FiveThirtyEight has more.

Mitch McConnell didn’t know what he was doing when he passed the 2018 Farm Bill. The bill included his provision that legalized industrial hemp, a form of cannabis that can be made into a wide variety of products including cannabidiol, a non-intoxicating cannabis compound commonly called CBD. That part was intentional — the law quickly launched a multi-billion dollar industry that put the once-obscure CBD compound into lattes, seltzers and hundreds of CVS stores across the country.  But after three years it appears one of the law’s biggest impacts was entirely unintentional: It accidentally created a booming market for synthetic THC, marijuana’s primary intoxicant.

The FDA is AWOL according to Politico.

The FDA’s original mission, in the words of acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, centered on “frustrating the sale of products peddled by frauds, charlatans, and careless companies.” But it isn’t doing that, and it hasn’t for a while now…when it comes to the non-prescription products that tens of millions of Americans buy every day — and which underlie a vast and growing industry — the agency is far less focused and effective, and in some cases, totally absent…the FDA’s failure to act is not only dangerous for consumers; it’s deeply damaging to the legitimate companies that are forced to compete with those that are reckless or worse.

Health Affairs, with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, takes a serious look at CBD policies and the lack thereof.

• Cannabis Liberalization In The US: The Policy Landscape: State cannabis policies are inconsistent across jurisdictions and often conflict with federal policy. Policy makers should adopt an approach to cannabis liberalization that addresses these inconsistencies, improves the safety of cannabis supply, and combats health disparities and other inequities.
• Cannabis legalization In The US: Population Health Impacts:  Evidence regarding the effects of recreational cannabis legalization on public health is inconsistent. Future research should assess heterogeneous policy design, differential effects on population subgroups, and effects related to characteristics of legal cannabis supply.