by Marion Nestle

Currently browsing posts about: Dairy

Aug 26 2021

Keeping up with plant-based substitutes: not easy

The marketplace for plant-based meat and dairy substitutes is booming, and attracting tons of venture capital.

It also is attracting controversy.

Mintel: Is the ‘plant-based’ claim losing credibility with consumers? Just as the term “all-natural” has lost much of its healthy-image luster over the years, the claim of “plant-based” also may be at risk of losing some of its better-for-you significance with consumers, according to Mintel research…. Read more
Opinion: Are vegan meat alternatives really saving animals? Michele Simon takes a closer look.
Want People to Eat Less Meat? Fake Burgers Probably Won’t Cut It. “Alt protein” companies think they can curb America’s carnivorous appetite. Charlie Mitchell says some experts are doubtful (I’m quoted).
Plant-based nutritional pitfalls: Why novel products don’t necessarily improve diet quality – Study. Diets with novel plant-based products tend to fall below the daily requirements for calcium, potassium, magnesium, zinc and vitamin B12, while often exceeding saturated fat, sodium and sugar levels, according to a new study…. Read more

Here are some of the new products and those in the works.

Ice cream: The scoop on plant-based ice cream: ‘Countless exciting and significant growth prospects’. Plant-based ice cream is a growing category gaining ground as a permissible treat. What is getting consumers excited about the fixture?… Read more
Candy: Making the switch from gelatin to pectin to create plant-based gummies. Gummy sales doubled from 2014 to 2018 but further growth is threatened by consumer avoidance of the animal product gelatin. Pectin is a plant-based alternative…. Read more
Fermented drinks: Making progress in developing probiotic beverages without animal protein. A team at the Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS) in Quebec, Canada is working on a plant-based fermented drink high in protein and probiotics…. Read more
Pepperoni: Beyond Meat teams up with Pizza Hut to trial Beyond Pepperoni Pizza in nearly 70 US locations. Pizza Hut and Beyond Meat are trialing Beyond Pepperoni Pizza, a plant-based version of Pizza Hut’s #1 selling pizza topping, in nearly 70 locations across five US markets for a limited time…. Read more
Sausage: Impossible Sausage debuts in grocery stores. The plant-based pork product, which first launched in foodservice in 2020, will be available in Savory and Spicy varieties at several retail locations nationwide.
Greek yogurt: ‘No brand to date has really nailed Greek in plant-based yogurt, until now….’ Danone unveils Silk Greek-style. Danone is hoping to make a splash in the small but rapidly growing plant-based yogurt segment with a Greek-style product under its Silk brand boasting 10g of protein from peas and a thick, creamy texture from coconut cream it claims will be a game changer for the category…. Read more
In summary: Plant-based new product development round-up. From meat-free chicken burgers to air-dried ingredients, ‘World first’ confectionery launches to vegan friendly brioche buns, we cover the latest in plant-based new product development from food manufacturers…. Read more

And the latest business news.

Beyond Meat files for trademark on Beyond Milk name: The document filed with the U.S. government said the patent would cover “making milk shakes; coffee or tea beverages with milk or milk substitutes.”
Beyond Milk, Beyond Eggs, Beyond Tuna… trademark applications highlight broad scope of Beyond Meat’s innovation pipeline. Beyond Meat’s filings with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reveal the broad scope of the company’s innovation pipeline, with trademark applications over the past couple of years spanning everything from Beyond Milk and Beyond Eggs to Beyond Crab, Beyond Jerky, and Beyond Tuna…. Read more

Tags: Dairy, Meat substitutes

Aug 24 2021

How much do cattle contribute to greenhouse gases? It depends on who’s counting, and what.

A couple of weeks ago I did a post about a beef industry ad promoting the idea that eating beef promotes sustainability. The ad claimed that beef contribute only 2% of greenhouse gases. In rebuttal, I cited the widely quoted figure of 14.5%.

Two readers argued for a correction.

The first, Stephen Zwick, describes himself as a “regenetarianist,” a “huge soil nerd,” and independent of industry interests. He sent lengthy and highly technical notes. These, in my interpretation, boil down to:

The 14.5% figure comes from a study that included land-use change, “specifically in Brazil at peak deforestation rates from 1998 to 2004,” and just for OECD countries.
In North America, deforestation isn’t a large issue. The 2014 UN Climate Change Conference numbers from countries where land change is not a big factor total 8.1% for all agriculture. Of that, only a quarter is from enteric fermentation (cattle methane burps). Adding in manure management, brings it to about 40% of 8.1% or a bit over 3%.
These global or regional numbers do not account for soil sinks or tropospheric sinks (elimination of methane). He cites three references: (1) WTF happens to all that methane?, (2) Methane: Accounting for both sides of the scale, (3) Ruminations: Methane math and context

He says:

Enteric methane is a distraction. Poor land management destroying soil sinks and reducing photosynthesis via desertification, deforestation and ocean acidification are also a huge problem. And yes, cattle and palm oil are part of the problem in tropical regions (see The Deforestation Process... )…Cattle is a very conspicuous driver, though it’s not really the primary driver. Human greed is…So, in other words, we need better regional and system data, and we can’t really make universal claims.

The second set of comments comes from Greg Miller, the chief science officer of the National Dairy Council.

While FAO estimates livestock emissions at 14.5% based on LCA [life cycle assessment], the emissions from transportation are only from the tailpipes (not LCA), so comparing apples and bananas – FAO did this, but later retracted because it is an inappropriate comparison, that now keeps getting repeated, thought you should know.

He cites this source on greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector:

And he cites this reference: Recht, L. 2021 An Inclusive Transition to a Sustainable and Resilient Meat Sector, which talks about how to raise cattle sustainably.

How to make sense of this?

The percentage of greenhouse gases due to animal agriculture depends on who is doing the counting, and what factors and assumptions go into the estimations. Low estimates predictably come from the beef and dairy industries (Stephen Zwick does not, which is why I am quoting him). The Environmental Protection Agency also produces low estimates: 1.3% of total emissions for dairies.

In contrast, the Humane Society uses 18% (referring to carbon dioxide equivalents), as does Cowspiracy.

A new paper in Sustainability argues that the correct estimate is 16.5%.

It matters whether we are talking about carbon dioxide or methane.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends “strong, rapid and sustained reductions in CH4 [methane] emissions” and notes that the growth in atmospheric methane is “largely driven by emissions from the fossil fuels and agriculture (dominated by livestock) sectors.”

I was interested to see yesterday’s Politico, which had a report about the current politics of methane emissions. (behind a paywall). It notes:

While oil and gas production is the main reason methane emissions have boomed since 2007, agriculture (namely livestock operations) remains a massive source of the potent greenhouse gas, accounting for 40 percent of methane emissions worldwide. ..Senate Democrats plan to include a “methane polluter fee” in their $3.5 trillion budget resolution that would hit energy producers that vent or burn off excess methane and compressors used to pressurize and transport natural gas.

The precise percentage contributed by animal agriculture? I’m not sure it matters. Everyone agrees that cattle produce more greenhouse gases than produced by any other food (as a result of burps, deforestation, feed production, manure, etc).

Raising cattle more sustainably and regeneratively is a really good idea.

That’s where policy needs to be directed.

Tags: Climate change, Dairy, Meat, Sustainability

Aug 9 2021

Industry-sponsored study of the week: Animal foods vs. plant-based substitutes

Thanks to Frank Lindner for sending this study. He is a campaigner for foodwatch Nederland, which among other campaigns, runs Stop the sale of science for better transparency in science.

He says this Tweet made him curious:

He followed up and found the study: The place of animal products in a sustainable diet. Authors: Stephen Peters, Jolande Valkenburg, Thom Huppertz, Luuk Blom, Lionel van Est. Norwegian Journal of Nutrition, Nr. 2 – June 2021.

The study begins with this premise:

Replacing animal-based foods with plant-based foods does not necessarily lower the diets [sic] carbon footprint.

Why?

In an average Dutch person’s diet, animal products are an important source of protein, minerals and vitamins…Animal products contribute significantly to the intake of important nutrients, such as high-quality protein, vitamins A, B2 and B12, calcium, magnesium, zinc and (in the case of meat) heme iron. These nutrients are not naturally, or often, found in plant products. Omitting animal products from the diet therefore can have major consequences for nutrient intake.

Lindner wrote that “I read the article and my jaw fell wide open at the very end….”

Funding: The research has been sponsored by the Dutch Dairy Association.

Conflicts of interest: Dr. Peters is a employed by the Dutch Dairy Association as manager of dairy health and sustainability. Dr. Huppertz is employed by FrieslandCampina, The Netherlands and is a professor of Dairy Science at Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands, Distinguished Visiting Professor at Victoria University, Australia and Editor-in-Chief of International Dairy Journal. Dr. Bloom and Dr. van Est are the founders of Nutrisoft. A (commercial) company that combines the knowledge of nutrition and ICT.

Comment: FrieslandCampina is a large dairy cooperative operating in 38 countries and employing nearly 24,000 people. It sponsors research at Wageningen University.

Milk and dairy may be at the heart of what we do, but at FrieslandCampina, we make more than just cheese and yogurt. We also produce dairy nutrition for specific groups of consumers, such as toddlers or adults with specific requirements.

Lindner was surprised by the disclosures and said “At least they are open and honest about it (they don’t even bother to hide it).” He should not be surprised. Industry-funded studies almost always produce results favorable to the sponsors’ interests. That is one reason why journals require authors to disclose financial relationships with sponsors.

Here, the interests are obvious. It is very much in the economic interests of dairy companies to demonstrate the nutritional superiority of dairy products over plant-based alternatives.

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.

Tags: Conflicts-of-interest, Dairy, Sponsored-research

May 3 2021

Industry policy influence of the week: meat and dairy vs. climate change

Thanks to Sinead Boylan in Australia for alerting me to this paper about the influence of the meat and dairy industries on climate change policy. The authors are Environmental Science colleagues at NYU.

The Study: The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers. Oliver Lazarus & Sonali McDermid & Jennifer Jacquet. Climatic Change (2021) 165:30.

Method: The authors examined the role of 35 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in actions related to preventing climate change. But in particular, it investigated “the transparency of emissions reporting, mitigation commitments, and influence on public opinion and politics of the 10 US meat and dairy companies.”

Its overall conclusion: “all 10 US companies have contributed to efforts to undermine climate-related policies.”

Through a questionnaire, it found (these are direct quotes):

All 10 US companies have contributed to research that minimizes the link between animal agriculture and climate change (Q11). Three companies—Tyson, Cargill, and Smithfield—have contributed directly to what Brulle (2014) called “climate change countermovement organizations” or organizations that have minimized the link between agriculture and climate change (Q13).
Four companies—Tyson, National Beef, Smithfield, and Hormel—have each made statements linking climate change regulation with potentially harming their profitability, either in an SEC form or in an annual report (Q17…).

Through researching OpenSecrets

Nine of the 10 companies have spent at least $600,000 on lobbying activities since 2000, with five of those companies spending over $14 million each…Tyson has spent the most on lobbying—$25 million—over the last two decades.
Cargill has spent $21.5 million; Smithfield Foods, $21 million; Dean Foods, $16 million; and Dairy Farmers of America, $14 million….
Combined, the companies have spent a total of $109 million on lobbying activities since 2000.
The other nine US-based companies [the tenth, Koch Foods, did not report] have spent a combined $26 million on political campaigns since 2000.
Dairy Farmers of America has spent the most, at $6.3 million since 2000. California Dairies has spent $5 million; Dean Foods, $4.3 million; Cargill, $4 million; and Tyson, $3.2 million.
Since 2000, Tyson has spent more on Republican candidates in every election cycle but one, and a similar pattern was observed for most of the companies examined here.
US meat and dairy companies act collectively…Together, six of these [trade] groups—the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the North American Meat Institute, the National Chicken Council, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the combined expenses of the American Farm Bureau Federation and its state groups—have spent nearly $200 million in lobbying since 2000, lobbying yearly on climate related issues like cap-and-trade, the Clean Air Act, and greenhouse gas regulations and reporting rules.
A recent sustainability report published by the US pork industry noted that “pork production contributes just 0.46% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere” (Pork Checkoff 2020).
In 2019, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association published a 21-part series, “Tough Questions About Beef Sustainability,” that, among other things, claims US beef production accounted for just 1.9% of total US emissions in 2014 (Beef Research 2019)

Their analysis also suggests: “the level of influence generally corresponded with emissions. Tyson, for example, is the largest emitter of the 10 US companies. Tyson received the highest total influence score in response to our 20 questions at 15, tied with National Beef Packing Company, the fourth highest emitter.”

Overall: “In the case of the USA, our analysis provides evidence to suggest that the 10 largest meat and dairy companies have worked to frame the conversation, influence climate-related policies, and minimize the link between animal agriculture and climate change.”

Comment: This issue matters because animal agriculture is estimated to contribute 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions. This, and industry behavior around this issue, is a reason why sustainability needs to be part of Dietary Guidelines, and “eat less meat” is good dietary advice for people in industrialized economies.

Tags: Climate change, Dairy, Meat

Apr 8 2021

Plant-based: an attempt to keep up

Information pours out about plant-based meat and dairy substitutes. Here are some recent items, pro and con:

Why plant-based business pioneers say the sector has just gotten started: The animal-free meat, dairy and cheese businesses are booming, but Seth Goldman, Miyoko Schinner and Alan Hahn said at a virtual conference last week that price parity, tech developments and more shifts in consumer preferences will drive it further.
Alternative proteins may capture 11% of total protein sales by 2035: A new study estimates the segment will be valued at $290 billion in the next 14 years, as well as potentially reach price parity with conventional meat products as early as 2023.
7 in 10 US consumers would swap cell-based chicken for traditional meat: The study done by an outside firm on behalf of Eat Just found overall attitudes toward cultured meat offerings are becoming more favorable.
PepsiCo overhauls Evolve in bid to make plant-based brand a household name: The food and beverage giant, which acquired the maker of bars, shakes and powders from Hormel in 2019, is hopeful new packaging, advertising and flavor profiles will raise brand awareness.
Vegan language: Is ‘plant-based’ too limiting for this rapidly expanding sector?‘Plant-based’ is a broad term used by food marketers to describe animal-free products. But is it the most fitting?… Read more
Plant-based dairy in focus: ‘Cheese is the most technically challenging space in dairy alternatives…’US retail sales of plant-based milk surged 21.9% to $2.542bn in measured channels in the year to Jan. 24, 2021, while sales of plant-based cheese and yogurt (far smaller categories) were up 43.6% to $233.9m and 16.4% to $346.2m respectively in the year to Feb 21, 2021, according to SPINS data…. Read more
The brittle truth about vegan Easter eggs: Vegan alternatives pass the flavour test (up to a point) but are prone to shattering, according to market research…. Read more
1 in 4 meat substitutes ‘do not contain enough protein to be considered a source of protein’Over a quarter of processed, vegetarian meat-substitute products are not a source of protein, according to research by Safefood into the nutritional content of more than 350 products which claim to be meat replacements…. Read more

Tags: Dairy, Meat substitutes

Mar 3 2021

And now, Buttergate?

I thought I already knew all the issues raised by palm fats, which I’ve written about previously, but also because I did a blurb for Jocelyn Zuckerman’s forthcoming Planet Palm: How Palm Oil Ended Up in Everything—and Endangered the World (New Press). Nope. Wrong.

Welcome to “Buttergate,” the latest palm fat scandal.

I thought I knew all the issues raised by palm fats, which I’ve written about previously, but also because I did a blurb for Jocelyn C. Zuckerman. Planet Palm: How Palm Oil Ended Up in Everything—and Endangered the World (New Press) which is not yet out but coming soon. How wrong I was.

Welcome to “Buttergate,” the latest palm fat scandal.

This begins with Canadians asking why, all of a sudden, is butter not getting soft at room temperature.

The answer: farmers are feeding cows palm oil, which is high in saturated (hard) fat

Why would they do this? Because it increases production of milk fat. And because it makes milk fat more highly saturated, butter gets harder.

The Canadian dairy industry is being asked to stop this practice because it breaches the dairy industry’s “ moral compact with Canadians.”

Do dairy foods need to be harder at room temperature? No.

Do dairy foods need to be higher in saturated fat? No.

Is this yet another reason to be wary of palm fat? Could be.

Are American farmers feeding palm oil to cows? The U.S. dairy industry is strangely quiet on this question. US journals report research on its use as cow feed. And Dairy Farmers of Canada says American dairy farmers do this too.

I did a little investigating. Here’s what Jamie Jonker, Vice President, Sustainability & Scientific Affairs, National Milk Producers Federation, says about the practices of the U.S. dairy industry:

Feeding byproducts from other parts of food production to dairy cattle, which recycles ingredients that may otherwise be thrown away, has been a staple of the U.S. dairy industry for decades. Palm oil byproducts fed to dairy cattle in small amounts has been among them.
The average daily consumption of palm oil per lactating cow in the U.S. is about 0.2 pounds (unpublished data). A lactating cow eats more than 50 pounds of feed (on a dry matter basis) so this is less than 0.4% of total diet.
There is not a legal limit feeding palm oil byproducts in the U.S., but from a practical standpoint there are dietary limits. Too high fat level in the diet will reduce overall feed consumed which will reduce overall nutrients to the cow decreasing productivity.
Diet does impact milk composition and dietary fat source can change milk fatty acid profile. There has not been a recent change in use of palm oil byproducts that would cause a discernible difference in butter ‘hardness’ at room temperature.
The palmitic acid portion of the weight of total fatty acids in butter is roughly 30 percent. That’s a decades-old industry standard that’s remained consistent throughout the pandemic. Palmitic acid is not just from the palm but can also be produced in other plants and organisms at low levels. For example, the amount in human breast milk averages 20 to 25%.

So for U.S. milk users, there doesn’t seem to be anything new here. The butter I’ve been buying still softens at room temperature, but the ambient temperature has to be really hot to melt it. Cow’s milk is a source of saturated fat. Butter is concentrated cow’s milk fat. Saturated fatty acids are solid at room temperature and that’s why butter is too.

Tags: Dairy, Palm oil

Nov 23 2020

Industry-funded study of the week: dairy foods and child growth

Growth and Development of Preschool Children (12–60 Months): A Review of the Effect of Dairy Intake. David C. Clark, Christopher J. Cifelli, Matthew A Pikosky. Nutrients 2020, 12(11), 3556; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113556

The study: A narrative review of studies of dairy intake and child growth, cognitive development, and weight gain.

Results: there is a positive association between dairy intake and linear growth. The impact of milk or dairy products on cognitive development is less clear due to a lack of evidence and is a gap in the literature that should be addressed. Regarding the impact on body weight, the majority of evidence suggests there is either no association or an inverse association between milk intake by preschool children on overweight and obesity later in life.

Funding: “The work involved for this manuscript was funded by National Dairy Council (provided to D.C.C.).”

Conflicts of interest: “C.J.C. and M.A.P. are employees of National Dairy Council.”

Comment: The Dairy Council has a vested interest in demonstrating that dairy foods promote linear growth and cognitive function in young children, but do not promote overweight or obesity. This dairy-funded literature review is remarkable for its cautious interpretation: “the absence of data from studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries is a serious gap, especially given the dual burden of undernutrition and overnutrition that is becoming prevalent in developing countries.” That’s another reason for this study: sell more dairy foods in middle- and low-income countries. China, for example, is pushing dairy products as a means to grow taller children; it does so despite widespread lactose intolerance among the Chinese population.

Tags: China, Dairy, Sponsored-research

Oct 22 2020

USDA data on dairy products

The USDA destroyed the ability of its Economic Research Service (ERS) to do investigations that might prove inconvenient for this administration (see my most recent post on this topic), but this agency is still producing reports on specific commodities.

Here are the latest dairy reports. You have to be pretty nerdy to delve into these Excel spreadsheets but if you do, you will get a good idea of what ERS staff are doing these days as well as learn details about dairy production. TMI? Maybe.

Data Set	Last Updated	Next Update
U.S. dairy situation at a glance (monthly and annual)	9/15/2020	10/14/2020
U.S. milk production and related data (quarterly and annual)	8/14/2020	11/13/2020
Commercial disappearance for dairy product categories (monthly and annual)	9/15/2020	10/14/2020
Commercial disappearance of milk in all products (monthly and annual)	9/15/2020	10/14/2020
Supply and allocation of milk fat and skim solids by product (annual)	11/22/2019	11/20/2020
Dairy products: Per capita consumption, United States (Annual)	9/4/2020	9/30/2021
Fluid beverage milk sales quantities by product (Annual)	8/31/2020	8/31/2021
Selected soft dairy products, domestic use (Annual)	8/31/2020	8/31/2021
Milk cows and production by State and region (Annual)	5/4/2020	5/4/2021
Annual milk production and factors affecting supply (Annual)	3/26/2019	4/1/2021
Milk: Supply and utilization of all dairy products (Annual)	9/4/2020	9/30/2021
Number and average size of U. S. fluid milk product plants	8/31/2020	8/31/2021
Per capita consumption of selected cheese varieties (Annual)	9/30/2020	9/30/2021

Tags: Dairy, USDA

Search this site