I always like writing about Nestlé, the huge multi-national food company based in Switzerland, because it gives me the opportunity to explain that no, I am not related to it (although colleagues have suggested that I claim to be the black sheep of the family).

Judith Evans, writing in the Financial Times, had a big story about the company (behind a paywall but can also be read at the Irish Times site).

Its headline: “Nestlé says majority of its food portfolio is unhealthy.”  She based her story on a leaked internal document.

Nestlé, has acknowledged in an internal document that more than 60 per cent of its mainstream food and drinks products do not meet a “recognised definition of health” and that “some of our categories and products will never be ‘healthy’ no matter how much we renovate”….Within its overall food and drink portfolio, some 70 per cent of Nestlé’s food products failed to meet that threshold [a rating above 3.5 under Australia’s health star rating system], the presentation said, along with 96 per cent of beverages – excluding pure coffee – and 99 per cent of Nestlé’s confectionery and ice cream portfolio.

Because infant formula, pet food, coffee, and the health sciences products were not counted in this analysis, the data apply to about half of Nestlé’s €84.35 billion ($102.6 billion) total annual revenues—Nestlé is indeed Big Food.

I was interviewed for this story, and quoted:

Marion Nestle (no relation), visiting professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University, [*] said Nestlé and its rivals would struggle to make their portfolios healthy overall.

“Food companies’ job is to generate money for stockholders, and to generate it as quickly and in as large an amount as possible. They are going to sell products that reach a mass audience and are bought by as many people as possible, that people want to buy, and that’s junk food,” she said.

“Nestlé is a very smart company, at least from my meetings with people who are in their science [departments] . . . but they have a real problem . . . Scientists have been working for years to try to figure out how to reduce the salt and sugar content without changing the flavour profile and, guess what, it’s hard to do.”

[*]  Oops.  That should have been Professor Emerita at NYU.  I asked for a correction and thought I had gotten one, but maybe only in the Financial Times.

I was also interviewed by Margarita Raycheva at IHS Market Connect(formerly Food Chemical News, and also behind a paywall):

Marion Nestle says labeling systems fail to account for ultraprocessed foods

While Nestlé’s plans to improve nutritional profiles have sparked some hope in nutrition experts like Hercberg, at least one other leading expert remains skeptical. According to Marion Nestle, a leading nutrition expert and professor at New York University, successful efforts to improve nutrition would have to go beyond meeting thresholds set through label ratings.

“What is at issue in this discussion is whether a somewhat healthier option is a better choice or even a good choice,” Nestle told IHS Markit on Monday (June 1).

While label-rating systems may flag some nutrients of concern, they do little to reduce consumption of ultraprocessed foods, which have been linked to both obesity and chronic disease, Nestle noted.

“NutriScore gives points for less sugar and salt, even to foods that are still ultraprocessed, and so do other nutrient-based front-of-package labeling systems, making all of them gameable by taking off a gram or two,” she said.

“Calling for reduction of consumption of ultraprocessed foods is much simpler, but it would exclude most of Nestlé’s products, even with tweaks,” she added.

The Swiss food giant has confirmed it will update its nutrition and health strategy after British newspaper the Financial Times published leaked internal documents acknowledging that nearly 70% of its main food and drinks products, making up about half of Nestlé’s CHF92.6bn total annual sales, do not meet a “recognised definition of health” and that “some of our categories will never be healthy”…. Read more

No matter how much Big Food companies say that want to promote health and wellness, they can only do so if their products continue to make the same kids of profits as do ultra-processed junk foods.  The company knows this and got caught saying so in public.

As for the uncounted other half of this company’s revenues? I’m keeping an eye on pet food.  Pet Food Industry reports that Nestlé is investing 1 billion yuan in pet food manufacturing in China.

What with accusations of causing cancer and climate change, putting workers at risk of Covid-19, and exercising inappropriate political muscle (writing Trump’s  executive order to keep the meat packing plants and collaborating with USDA to fight public health measures), Big Meat is under a lot of pressure.

And now we have the latest—a ransomware hack of the largest meat company in the world, the Brazilian company JBS ($52 billion in revenues).

By messing with the company’s IT systems, the hackers shut down all of its meatpacking facilities.

In a press release, JBS said the attack would not seriously affect supply chains, but one expert says the meat industry is likely to feel the effects of this disruption for weeks..

The USDA says it is in communication with everyone concerned: the White House, Homeland Security Department and JBS.

The Counter points out that JBS is not the first food company to be subject to a ransomware attack, and it undoubtedly will not be the last.

Politico (behind a paywall) reports:

Virtually no mandatory cybersecurity rules govern the millions of food and agriculture businesses that account for about a fifth of the U.S. economy — just voluntary guidelines exist. The two federal agencies overseeing the sector include the USDA, which has faced criticism from Congress for how it secures its own data. And unlike other industries that have formed information-sharing collectives to coordinate their responses to potential cyber threats, the food industry disbanded its group in 2008.

Politico also reports that last month, the University of Minnesota’s Food Protection and Defense Institute warned about the threats to meatpacking plants, and how shutdowns would cause meat shortages and price spikes.  And in November last year, the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike noted “a tenfold increase in interactive — or “hands-on-keyboard” — intrusions affecting the agriculture industry over the previous 10 months.”

Politico also said:

A 2018 report from the Department of Homeland Security examined a range of cyber threats facing the industry as it adopts digitized “precision agriculture,” while the FBI said in April 2016 that agriculture is “increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks as farmers become more reliant on digitized data.” The industry also offers plentiful targets: As the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber agency notes , the ag and food sector includes “an estimated 2.1 million farms, 935,000 restaurants, and more than 200,000 registered food manufacturing, processing, and storage facilities,” almost all under private ownership.

The Justice Department says it intends to handle ransomware cases the same way it handles terrorism cases, according to CBS News.

The White House says the hackers are almost certainly Russian cyber-criminals.

JBS has not yet said whether it paid a ransom.  [Added comment, 6-10-21: JBS paid $11 million in ransom].

If food companies have not adequately invested in their IT systems, now is the time.

The review:  Do Refined Grains Have a Place in a Healthy Dietary Pattern: Perspectives from an Expert Panel Consensus Meeting .  Yanni Papanikolaou, Joanne L Slavin, Roger Clemens, J Thomas Brenna, Dayle Hayes, Glenn A Gaesser, Victor L Fulgoni, III.  Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 4, Issue 10, October 2020, nzaa125.

Method: “A scientific expert panel was convened to review published data since the release of 2015 dietary guidance in defined areas of grain research, which included nutrient intakes, diet quality, enrichment/fortification, and associations with weight-related outcomes.

Results: 

1) whole grains and refined grains can make meaningful nutrient contributions to dietary patterns,

2) whole and refined grain foods contribute nutrient density,

3) fortification and enrichment of grains remain vital in delivering nutrient adequacy in the American diet,

4) there is inconclusive scientific evidence that refined grain foods are linked to overweight and obesity, and

5) gaps exist in the scientific literature with regard to grain foods and health.“

Supported by the Grain Foods Foundation.  The sponsors (Grain Foods Foundation) had no role in the design of the study or in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data.

Author disclosures: YP, as President of Nutritional Strategies, provides food, nutrition, and regulatory affairs consulting services for food and beverage companies and food-related associations and collaborates with VLF on NHANES analyses. VLF, as Senior Vice President of Nutrition Impact, provides food and nutrition consulting services for food and beverage companies. VLF also conducts analyses of NHANES data for members of the food industry. JLS, RC, JTB, DH, and GAG all received an honorarium and travel expenses in the current scientific collaboration.

Comment: The Grain Foods Foundation commissioned the panel and paid the panel participants for their service and travel.  For the authors, this was a paid gig.  The Foundation got what it paid for.  About results #1, 2, and 5, there can be no argument.  #1 and #2 are obvious and did not require a scientific panel to come to those conclusions: even refined grains have nutritional value, not least because they are fortified with several key nutrients.   That’s why these authors consider fortification and enrichment to be “vital.”

What this really is about is to demonstrat that refined grains are healthy and do no harm (#4).  But refined grains are major components of ultra-processed foods, which cause people who eat them to take in more calories than they recognize or need (see Hall et al, 2019) and are strongly associated with higher levels of obesity, chronic disease, and mortality.  Despite dozens of studies consistently linking ultra-processed foods to these conditions, this industry-sponsored panel says the evidence is inconclusive.

The underlying purpose of this study, therefore, is to cast doubt on the connection between refined grains, ultra-processed foods, and weight gain.

With independently funded research, even by biased researchers, the underlying purpose is usually explicit.

–Thanks to Lisa Young for alerting me to this one.

Jocelyn C. Zuckerman.  Planet Palm: How Palm Oil Ended Up in Everything—and Endangered the World.  The New Press, 2021.  

Here’s my blurb for this book:

I’ve always thought of palm oil as just another best-to-avoid food ingredient for its high level of saturated fat, but can never look at it the same way again after reading Planet Fat.  I now understand that oil palms represent the darkest underside of late-stage capitalism, responsible as they are for land grabs, forest devastation, peat burning, greenhouse gases, loss of biodiversity and orangutan habitat, junk food, chronic illness, and food insecurity, all accompanied by unthinkable levels of corruption, criminality, and violence: accidents, thievery, arson, and murders.  This is an ugly story, compellingly told.  It needs to be read. 

And here are a few short excerpts.

The first:

In 2019, the World Health Organization compared the tactics used by the palm oil industry to tose employed by the tobacco and alcohol lobbies, no slouches when it comes to playing dirty…Across the globe, those who’ve dared to speak out against the industry, whether laborers, peasant farmers environmental activists, or investigative journalists, often ave been met with violence [p. 17]

With reference to a “technically safeguarded” national park in Indonesia:

The past decade and a half have seen roughly five thousand acres of its park converted to oil-palm plantations.  Today, only 4.5 million acres of the ecosystem remain forested.  Here as elsewhere in Indonesia, palm oil companies have secured permits through backroom deals with local officials or have simply pad others to clear the land illegally [p. 116]

One reason for concern:

While it’s true that many of the world’s people could use more calories…the global glut of palm oil is in fact diminishing food security, in a fairly drastic way.  It’s common to blame sugar for the world’s weight problems, but in the last half-century, refined vegetable oils have added far more calories to the global diet than has any other food group.  Between 1961 and 2009, for example, the availability of palm oil worldwide went up a staggering 206 percent [p. 162]

I’ve been collecting items on the effects of Brexit on food issues in the UK.  These are even more complicated because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Just Food tracks this issue on an ongoing basis.

Here are some of the items collected by Just Food, along with some others I’ve picked up.

• UK food exports to EU improve after post-Brexit slump:  New data have revealed what happened to UK food exports to the European Union in February following a post-Brexit slowdown in January.
• UK meat, seafood exports to EU “picking up” – government:  There are indications UK exports of meat, seafood and dairy to the EU are recovering, the country’s government has suggested.
• UK meat processors warn of ongoing post-Brexit trade problems:  The British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), which represents businesses in the UK meat sector, has reported on its members’ experiences under post-Brexit trading rules.
• UK food, drink exports to EU slump post-Brexit:  The body representing UK food and drink manufacturers has highlighted the risk to small businesses amid a post-Brexit slump in exports to EU.
• Delays at the UK/EU border “getting worse”:  A new survey has asked supply chain managers to provide an update on problems at UK/European Union border posts.
• COVID-19: one year on – what now for food supply chain?  It has now been just over a year since the industry had to contend with the seismic impact of COVID-19, which brought a tremendous strain upon supply chains, retailers and producers… Read
• Brexit could cost UK meat exporters 50% of trade, says BMPA:  UK meat exporters could permanently lose half their trade due to Brexit, according to the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA)… Read
• British food faces ‘outright export bans’ in wake of EU exit:  British food businesses face ‘outright export bans’ and ‘structural’ barriers to trade with Europe thanks to bureaucracy linked with Brexit, according to the House of Lords EU Environment sub-committee… Read

NutraIngredients.com had an intriguing (to me, at least) article about the latest complaints about FDA’s lack of action on GRAS ingredients—those Generally Recognized As Safe.

A recent paper claims FDA is in the dark as to how many new ingredients have come onto the market via the GRAS process. Only limited progress has been made in the decade since a Congressional report first raised the issue and directed the Agency to make changes, the authors found.”

The article referred to a this paper, Ten years post-GAO assessment, FDA remains uninformed of potentially harmful GRAS substances in foods.

The starting point for this paper is a study done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ten years ago: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)

The new paper argues that ten years later, the FDA has done little to address the GAO’s concerns.

Since 2010, FDA has addressed only a few of the criticisms regarding its process for establishing a food substance as GRAS. …most critically, FDA has chosen to remain uninformed about food substances self-determined as GRAS by manufacturers…FDA cannot fulfill its statutory obligation for ensuring the chemical safety of the U.S. food supply if it does not know which substances, in which quantities, have been added to foods.

This took me right back to a blog post I did in 2016: The FDA’s unfortunate ruling on GRAS regulations.

Conclusion: “Addition of mushrooms to USDA Food Patterns increased several micronutrients including shortfall nutrients (such as potassium, vitamin D and choline), and had a minimal or no impact on overall calories, sodium or saturated fat.”

The Rockefeller Foundation has produced what I view as an incredibly important guide to describing—“framing”—food system issues in ways that will encourage support for transforming the U.S. food system.

For effective advocacy, issues have to be “framed” in a way that the public can understand and respond to.

“Framing” is a concept made famous by George Lakoff.  It refers to the way political messages are designed to resonate with voters.  But it also refers to how public health messages can be designed to be more effective in encouraging people to act in the interests of their own health (wear masks, for example).

For food system change, the Rockefeller Foundation issued an action guide:  Reset the Table: Messaging Guide,

One of the consistent needs expressed by those seeking to transform the food system is a shared narrative to motivate and sustain the needed changes in the system. This narrative and messaging guide focuses on the long-term food system transformation while responding to the evolving circumstances presented by the pandemic, economic downturn, and racial justice reckoning being experienced in the United States.

Its guide is part of a longer report giving the research basis behind the messages: Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System.

Here is an example of how this kind of research-based framing works:

And here is an example of the messaging in action:

These are great suggestions for ways to talk about food issues.

Required reading!