The European Parliament has just ratified the European Commission’s Farm-to-Fork Draft Action Plan for a “For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system.”  This was based on previous reports and research.

On 11 December 2019, the European Commission presented ‘The European Green Deal‘, a roadmap for sustainability that envisaged a ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy on sustainable food, to address priorities and challenges related to every step in the food chain. Many citizens and stakeholders contributed to the Commission’s consultation on a sustainable food strategy in February/March 2020. Initially planned for the end of March, the launch of the strategy was delayed due to the outbreak of the coronavirus. This change of plans raised lively debate among stakeholders and policy-makers on whether the strategy should be further delayed or not…On 20 May 2020, the Commission adopted its communication on ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system‘, accompanied by an action plan that put forward 27 legislative and non-legislative measures over a timespan running from 2020 to 2024 (with a review by mid-2023).

The European Commission’s Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy are summarized here.

The European Parliament approved the action plan despite having do deal with a lobbying blitz from meat producers.

This has triggered an unexpectedly hostile lobbying frenzy both inside and outside the EU, particularly among critics who argue the European approach will reduce crop yields and drive up food prices. The U.S. is signing countries up to a rival agricultural plan based on keeping production high, while Europe’s national farming ministers are battling to ensure that these new green targets will be kept legally separate from the EU’s €270 billion farm subsidies policy.

Another industry body objects to the scapegoating of ultra-processed foods in the action plan.

Comment: As is almost always the case with such plans, there are so many proposals in the just-approved action plan that it is hard to sort out what is important.  There is plenty here to challenge food companies, for example:

• Directive to significantly reduce use and risk and dependency on pesticides and enhance Integrated Pest Management
• Evaluation and revision of the existing animal welfare legislation, including on animal transport and slaughter of animals
• Proposal for a revision of the feed additives Regulation to reduce the environmental impact of livestock farming
• Initiative to improve the corporate governance framework, including a requirement for the food industry to integrate sustainability into corporate strategies
• Set nutrient profiles to restrict promotion of food high in salt, sugars and/or fat
• Proposal for a harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling to enable consumers to make health conscious food choices
• Proposal for a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices
• Review of the EU school scheme legal framework with a view to refocus the scheme on healthy and sustainable food

Could we do something like this, please.

In a press release, the USDA says it is going to take action against Salmonella contamination of poultry in order to get closer to the national target of a 25% reduction in Salmonella illnesses.

Despite consistent reductions in the occurrence of Salmonella in poultry products, more than 1 million consumer illnesses due to Salmonella occur annually, and it is estimated (PDF, 1.4 MB) that over 23% of those illnesses are due to consumption of chicken and turkey…USDA intends to seek stakeholder feedback on specific Salmonella control and measurement strategies, including pilot projects, in poultry slaughter and processing establishments. A key component of this approach is encouraging preharvest controls to reduce Salmonella contamination coming into the slaughterhouse.

The North American Meat Institute says its members are happy to assist (Salmonella is a problem for poultry, not beef).

The National Chicken Council also pledged to assist with the pilot projects, but then put the onus of responsibility squarely on you.

Even with very low levels of pathogens, there is still the possibility of illness if a raw product is improperly handled or cooked. Increased consumer education about proper handling and cooking of raw meat must be part of any framework moving forward. Proper handling and cooking of poultry is the one thing that will eliminate any risk of foodborne illness. All bacteria potentially found on raw chicken, regardless of strain, are fully destroyed by handling the product properly and cooking it to an internal temperature of 165°.

The newly formed Coalition for Poultry Food Safety Reform, led by Center for Science in the Public Interest, welcomes the USDA’s announcement, but insists that USDA’s food safety oversight needs to extend from farm to fork.

Comment: The USDA’s jurisdiction starts at the slaughterhouse, but chickens coming into the plant are already contaminated with Salmonella.  This means prevention has to start on the farm, and poultry producers would have to institute procedures to keep their flocks free of Salmonella. They would much rather you cooked your chicken properly.

The latest big Salmonella outbreak is due to onions, an FDA-regulated food.

FDA’s traceback investigation is ongoing but has identified ProSource Produce, LLC (also known as ProSource Inc.) of Hailey, Idaho, and Keeler Family Farms of Deming, New Mexico, as suppliers of potentially contaminated whole, fresh onions imported from the State of Chihuahua, Mexico.

Keeler Family Farms issued a voluntary recall.   ProSource Produce LLC also issued a voluntary recall.

The CDC has the statistics:

Comment: I wrote about a previous onion recall last year.   Food safety lawyer Bill Marler asks: What did we learn – or not – from the 2020 Salmonella Outbreak linked to onions?  That investigation, as he emphasizes, identified probable causes:

• potentially contaminated sources of irrigation water;
• sheep grazing on adjacent land;
• signs of animal intrusion, including scat (fecal droppings), and large flocks of birds that may spread contamination; and
• food contact surfaces that had not been inspected, maintained, or cleaned as frequently as necessary to protect against the contamination of produce.

The FDA lists all the products that have been recalled so far.  It also displays their labels.  If you have onions from these companies, treat them like biosafety hazards.  If you can’t bear to throw them out, at least boil them and sterilize everything they could have contacted.

Jackfruit?  No, I’m not kidding.

For one thing, it’s JSTOR Daily’s Plant of the Month: “The newly hot alternative to meat has a long history.”

Jackfruit is not new in South Asia and its surrounding regions, where it has been a culturally significant foodstuff for centuries. Nor is jackfruit new in the West. Rather, it has a long and disquieting history: British imperialists wielded jackfruit as a tool to provide cheap nutrition to enslaved and coerced laborers throughout their empire.

Here’s what it looks like on the tree:

And off:

If you are in the business of selling Jackfruit, or products made from it, you will want research demonstrating health benefits.

Voila!

The study: Efficacy of green jackfruit flour as a medical nutrition therapy replacing rice or wheat in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study  Gopal Rao, K. Sunil Naik, A. G. Unnikrishnan & James Joseph.  Nutrition & Diabetes volume 11, Article number: 18 (2021)

Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients with type-2 diabetes who were being treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents.  They were either given jackfruit flour 30 g/day (Group A) or placebo flour (Group B) for 12 weeks.

Results: Patients from Group A had a better reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial plasma glucose than patients in Group B.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the efficacy of jackfruit flour in glycemic control as medical nutrition therapy replacing an equal volume of rice or wheat flour in daily meal.

Funding: Diet Fibre 365 Food Products Pvt Ltd, India.

Acknowledgment: “The authors would like to acknowledge Abiogenesis Clinpharm Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, for medical writing assistance funded by Diet Fibre 365 Food Products Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India.”

Competing interests: JJ is the inventor of Jackfruit 365™ Green Jackfruit Flour with a pending patent and CEO of God’s Own Food Solutions Pvt Ltd which along with its subsidiary Diet Fibre 365 Food Products Pvt Ltd manufactures and markets the product. AGR, KSN, and UAG have no conflict of interest to declare.

Comment: This is a classic example of the funding effect in nutrition research.  The author owns the Jackfruit flour and the company that markets it, and the funder wrote (OK, helped to write) the paper.  The results were predictable.

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.

Saru Jayaraman has a new book out:

She explains what this is about in an email:

As described in this recent NY Times article, we have been documenting thousands of restaurants raising wages to a median of $13.50 plus tips nationwide in order to recruit staff. As a result, we are so close to passing One Fair Wage – a very hopeful, silver lining to emerge from several challenging years.

In this moment of incredible change, we are hoping to use my new book – One Fair Wage: Ending Subminimum Pay in America (New Press, 2021) – to call for policy that will make the increasing wages nationwide permanent.

Please join us for one of the in-person or virtual events.

The newsletter issued by Hunter College’s Food Policy Center (subscribe to it here) notes recent items about food workers, restaurants, and food labor:

• A Record 4.3 Million Workers Quit Their Jobs in August, Led by Food and Retail Industries (CNBC) 
• Restaurant Wages Tick Higher but the Industry’s Labor Crunch Remains Intractable (CNBC)  
• ‘Death of 1,000 Cuts’: Kellogg’s Workers on Why They’re Striking (The Guardian)  
• Labor Strikes Target Big Food as Workers Seize on Industry Turmoil (Food Dive)  
• Restaurant Criticism Was Evolving Well Before COVID-19 (The Counter)  
• Food-Delivery Platforms Now Serving Ads (The Wall Street Journal)  
• 22 Organizations Supporting Mental Health Along the Food Chain (Food Tank)

Comment: Now more than ever, labor issues matter.  It helps to stay informed about what’s happening on the food-labor front.

This tweet makes me think it’s time to talk about supply chains.

Supply chains are a big problem right now, particularly for anything that has to be transported.

How come?  Pandemic-induced buying sprees, coupled with shortages of:

• Truck drivers.
• Shipping crates.
• Longshoremen.

Your local grocery store is out of items?  Join the crowd.

Around 18% of beverages, 15% of frozen foods, 16% of snacks, 15% of candy and 18% of bakery items were out of stock at stores during the week ending on October 3, according to the latest data from IRI, which tracks in-stock levels at leading US grocery chains, big box stores, pharmacies and wholesale clubs.

Before the pandemic, 7% to 10% of products were typically out of stock on shelves, according to IRI.

Nobody expects this situation to get better soon.

The UK newsletter, FoodManufacture, has done a special edition on supply chains (subscribe free at this link).

• Perfect storm hits the food and drink supply chain:  The food and drink supply chain has taken a beating over the past 18 months, with each new crisis piling on a new concern for business to worry about. But above all else, the main concern is how to get the supply chain moving again in spite of the recent heavy goods vehicle (HGV) driver shortage… Read  
• Food supply chain fragility: what can be done?  Events over the past 18 months have shown how fragile our global food system is. Fotis Fotiadis, chief executive officer and co-founder of Better Origin, discusses what can be done in this opinion piece… Read
• UK beef ban by China risks damaging future trade:  China’s latest ban of British beef imports over a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) could damage future trade with the country, according to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB)… Read
• Fuel shortages create challenges for food and drink:  As queues over the weekend left forecourts empty, members of the food and drink industry weighed in on how the fuel crisis has affected them… Read
• EVCL Chill enters administration placing jobs at risk:  Chilled food logistics business EVCL Chill Ltd – including EVCL One, EVCL Two and EVCL Three – has entered into administration after struggling with challenges created by the heavy goods vehicle (HGV) driver shortage, placing more than 400 jobs at risk… Read
• PepsiCo completes £14m distribution centre investment:  PepsiCo has completed a £14m upgrade of its Southern Region Distribution Centre (SRDC) based in Leicester… Read

Addition

10/22: An article I missed from Forbes in August.

Remember those USDA food boxes I complained about so often last year?

Now we have a congressional staff report providing the gory (an understatement) details.

Recall that the ostensible purpose of this program was to collect food from struggling farmers, pack the boxes, and deliver them to food banks for distribution to hungry people.

I thought this was way too cumbersome to work.  Its real purpose had to be to undermine SNAP.

This reports provides the horrendous details: huge expenditures, high profits, failure to deliver as promised.

One distributor was paid $31.5 million; it reported reported profits of 10% to 25%.

Another, paid $16.5 million, charged the government a 50% markup.

Some of the report’s conclusions (others dealt with President Trump’s use of the boxes for campaign purposes).

• USDA Failed to Ensure that Box Contents Met the Needs of Food Insecure Americans.
• Documentation Requirements Were Fundamentally Insufficient, Creating Unnecessary Risks of Fraud.
• The Program Was Created Without Mechanisms for USDA to Confirm that Box Distributions Targeted People in Need.
• The Food Box Program’s Structure Incentivized Contractors to Waste Food and Shift Costs to Nonprofits.
• USDA Did Not Effectively Review Deliveries and Contractor Performance.

As for helping farmers, some big ones made out well, small ones not so much.  The report offers these gems:

The idea for the Food Box program appears to have originated with a large food industry group. Emails show that the National Chicken Council proposed the idea for “a special purchase of chicken in light of COVID-19,” and subsequent distribution of such chicken products to “worthy recipients,” to Secretary Perdue’s office on April 6, 2020 (p. 30).

contractors in the Food Box Program sometimes [were] paid well above market prices, with farmers and producers sometimes receiving from CRE8AD8 up to ten times the payments they would normally get from grocery stores (p. 36)

USDA apparently did not collect evidence that would allow it to confirm (1) the quantity and specific types of foods ultimately purchased for inclusion in the dairy, protein, or produce food boxes, (2) the amount actually paid by taxpayers to farmers and producers (p. 36).

The report has many recommendations for preventing such problems but why bother.

It would be much cheaper and less wasteful to raise SNAP benefits.

On October 13, the FDA finally got around to finalizing its guidance for the food industry for voluntary, short-term (2.5 year) sodium reduction targets for lots of processed, packaged and prepared foods.

In a statement, the FDA says its new guidance

provides voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, restaurants, and food service operators for approximately 160 categories of processed, packaged and prepared foods. The targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 milligrams (mg) to 3,000 mg per day—about a 12% reduction—over the next 2.5 years.

Reducing sodium has been on the FDA agenda for years.  It issued draft guidance in 2016.  On this, it received about 200 comments.  

The FDA’s idea for this first target is to reduce average daily sodium intake by about 12%—from approximately 3,400 milligrams (mg) to 3,000 mg per day—in 2.5 years.

This is still higher than the recommended 2300 mg.  Why so limited?

Politics, of course.

The FDA believes

• These targets are feasible.
• Gradual reduction will accustom people to lower sodium intake.
• Food companies might be willing to do this.

A quick review of the basics:

• Salt is 40% sodium (2300 mg sodium means about 6 grams of salt or 1.5 teaspoons).
• High salt diets are strongly associated with high blood pressure and stroke.
• We require less than 500 mg sodium a day; average diets are greatly in excess.
• Most salt in the diet comes from pre-prepared foods (70%); 20% is added at the table; 10% is innate in foods.
• The taste for high-salt is acquired; the more salt you eat, the more salt it takes to make foods taste right.
• For people used to high-salt diets, low-salt makes food taste bland.  It takes about three weeks to get used to low-salt.
• Once accustomed to low-salt, typical levels of salt make food taste too salty.

Thus, the FDA’s strategy is to gradually accustom people to lower salt intake.

The guidance is voluntary: “This voluntary, iterative approach is similar to approaches successfully implemented in other countries.”

By other countries, the FDA must mean Great Britain.  The UK did a big voluntary salt reduction campaign some years ago and got enough buy in from food companies to see a real difference in salt intake and blood pressure.

When the government changed and laid off the pressure, companies put back most of the salt (not all though). That history is here.

So this could work if food companies cooperate.  Presumably, the FDA will assess the results of this voluntary effort in 2.5 years.

The stick?  The implied threat of mandatory reductions if the voluntary ones don’t work.

2.5 years is a long time to wait for voluntary compliance.

My view

• These should have been mandatory to begin with.
• The target levels should be lower.
• The time scale should be faster.

Other than that, the FDA’s plan could be a useful first step.  We shall see.

Statements

• From FDA officials
• The American Heart Association  
• Center for Science in the Public Interest

Documents

• The FDA constituent update on sodium is available here.
• An FDA web page, “Sodium Reduction,” is available here.
• The FDA guidance for industry is available here.
• Dietary Guidelines for Americans  fact sheet on sodium
• A paper in JAMA from FDA officials on reducing sodium in the US

This one is so unusual that it demands attention.

The study: Thirty Days of Montmorency Tart Cherry Supplementation Has No Effect on Gut Microbiome Composition, Inflammation, or Glycemic Control in Healthy Adults.  Angela R. Hillman1* and Bryna C. R. Chrismas  Front. Nutr., 16 September 2021

Hypothesis: Polyphenols in Montmorency Tart Cherry products would influence the gut microbiome composition,which would modulate changes in inflammatory markers and glucose regulation.

Methods: Four groups of subjects consumed either concentrate or freeze-dried capsules or their corresponding placebos for 30 days.

Results: Only one of several inflammatory markers was reduced.  There were no changes in insulin, glycated albumin, or composition of bacterial phyla, families, or subfamilies for the duration of this study nor was there a change in species richness.

Conclusion: These data suggest that 30 days of MTC supplementation does not modulate the gut microbiome, inflammation, or improve glycemic control in a healthy, diverse group of adults.

Funding: This study was funded by a grant from The Cherry Marketing Institute.

Comment: I have previously posted several studies paid for by cherry trade associations; these yielded results demonstrating truly remrkable health benefits of cherry consumption (see this one on prevention of dementia, for example).

But this study found cherry extracts to do nothing special.

Applause to these authors!

All fruits have antioxidants of one kind or another.  Eating a variety of delicious fruits should be a pleasure, not a medical duty.

It’s past the cherry season in the Northeast where I live, but if you can get them, enjoy!