Currently browsing posts about: Meat

Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Their Effects on Cardiometabolic Health: An 8-Week Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Plant-Based Meat Analogs With Their Corresponding Animal-Based Foods. Toh DWK, Fu AS, Mehta KA, Lam NYL, Haldar S, Henry CJ. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Jun;119(6):1405-1416. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.006. Epub 2024 Apr 8.

Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Aug;120(2):459. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.06.012.

This study compared effects on cardiometabolic health among people eating meat or plan-based alternatives for 8 weeks.

Conclusion: An 8-wk PBMA (plant-based) diet did not show widespread cardiometabolic health benefits compared with a corresponding meat based diet.

Funding: This study was supported by Pinduoduo Incorporated (HongKong Walnut Street Limited). Pinduoduo Incorporated had no role in study design, study conduct, laboratory analyses, data collection, management and interpretation or the writing, reviewing and approval of the manuscript.

Comment

This study was sent to me by a reader, who viewed it as a rare example of an industry-funded study with results unfavorable to the sponsor’s interests.  He thought the “Walnut” in the company’s name indicated a plant-based bias.

I wasn’t so sure and wondered what Pinduoduo did, exactly.

According to Wikipedia, “Pinduoduo Inc. (Chinese: 拼多多; Pinyin: Pīn duōduō) is a Chinese online retailer with a focus on the traditional agriculture industry. The business is the largest product of PDD Holdings, which also owns the online marketplace Temu.”

But it gets even better.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a correction to the paper:

The original funding statement was insufficiently elaborated and has been revised for greater clarity: Christiani Jeyakumar Henry [the senior investigator on this study] reports partial financial support provided by Pinduoduo Incorporated (HongKong Walnut Street Limited) which is an agricultural research firm.

This, then, is a standard example of an industry-funded—and conducted—study producing just the results wanted.  Another example of marketing research, alas.

James Merchant and Robert Martin, eds. Public Health Impacts of Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024.

I served on the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production with both authors about 15 years ago and was happy to do a blurb for their book.

This hard-hitting book defies meat industry pressure and obfuscation to document the devastating effects of its current production methods on the quality of air and water and on human health.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  Here’s a roadmap for a healthier and environmentally sustainable meat production system.

The book begins with an account of meat industry interference with the work of the Pew Commission and researchers investigating the health and polluting effects of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

Our experience, and that of several of the authors of the 12 chapters in this book, have encountered considerable interference with their academic freedom as exerted directly by industrial agriculture or its pressure on academic administrators. Ensuring academic freedom, unbiased funding and unbiased research is critical to a sustainable environment and to protect the public’s health…. The pressure included industry harassment and intimidation of community residents, industry intrusion seeking to identify study subjects and research records, pressure applied to University administrators, and intimidation and litigation threats.

The multi-authored chapters document the extensive damage to health, the environment, and social justice caused by CAFOs, and recommend ways to deal with it.

Enforcing existing laws about air, water, soil, odor pollution, and animal welfare would be a good starting point.

Cell-culture isn’t just for beef anymore.  I’ve been collecting items…

FOIE GRAS:  ProVeg hails application for EU approval of cultivated foie gras: French company seeks approval for product made from cultivated duck cells.

EEL:  Cultivated eel that ‘melts in your mouth’? How Forsea mimics ‘tender, succulent’ texture of fish and seafood:  Eel meat is unlike any other: it is fatty, tender, and ‘almost melts in your mouth’, explains Roee Nir, co-founder and CEO of Forsea Foods. The start-up is working to mimic these attributes with stem cells in a lab…. Read more

COFFEE:  A cup of lab-grown Joe: researchers release proof of concept for cell-cultured coffee: Dr. Heiko Rischer and his team at VTT Technical Research of Finland published its cell-cultured coffee recipe, highlighting the opportunity to strengthen and reinforce the global coffee supply chain…. Read more

BREAST MILK: Cell-based breast milk in development to replace ‘suboptimal’ bovine infant formula: Can the complexities of breast milk be replicated by cows? France-based Nūmi doesn’t think so. The start-up is turning to cell culture to develop the ‘closest thing possible’ to breast milk…. Read more

PET FOOD: Cultivated meat pet food gains UK approval in world first:Meatly has announced that it has received regulatory clearance to sell cultivated meat for pet food in the UK…. Read more

PROTEIN: Beyond Meat launches ‘first of its kind’ protein to appeal to health-conscious consumers:  The company’s latest product is not intended to replicate beef, pork or chicken. It comes amid a sharp downturn in plant-based meat consumption.

MEAT AND SEAFOOD: Cultivated meat and seafood watch: What’s the latest in cultivated?  Cultivated meat, despite only being on the market in one country (Singapore), is on the rise…. Read more

AND THE POLITICS, OF COURSE: Nebraska governor says no to lab-grown meat: If Gov. Jim Pillen has his way, Nebraska legislators will pass a law banning the sale of “lab-grown meat” — the industry prefers the term cultivated meat — during its next session. Florida and Alabama enacted state bans on the alternative meat this year, and Iowa has barred school districts and publicly funded colleges from buying the meat.

Two readers, Tara Kenny and Martin Caraher, sent this one:  Plant-based diets–impacts of consumption of little or no animal-source foods on human health.  by Alice V. Stanton  ^{Front. Nutr., 17 September 2024. Volume 11 – 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1423925}

The paper argues for the benefits of meat-based diets:

The protections provided by plant-based diets against NCDs [non-communicable diseases] appear to be more strongly associated with reduced intakes of calories and salt, and increased intakes of fruit, vegetables, nuts and whole grains, rather than with reduced intakes of ASFs [animal-source foods]. Any possible absolute adverse effects of red and processed meat consumption on NCDs are very small and uncertain…dietary guidelines should advise moderating excessive consumption, rather than substantially limiting or excluding ASFs from the human diet.

The author’s conflict-of-interest statement:

Alice Stanton was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition (2017–2023); and currently owns stock in Devenish Nutrition, an agri-technology company specializing in sustainable food solutions.

Comment

My readers point out that the author’s financial conflicts of interest are understated.  Devinish Nutrition is, in fact, a family business.  The company states it is “an innovator in animal nutrition by providing a wide range of products and services.”  It was acquired this year by EASY BIO a South Korean animal nutrition company.

Both readers also point out that Alice Stanton has pro-meat ideological conflicts of interest, but these concern me much less.  Everyone who does research has beliefs and hypotheses they want to test.  But not everyone stands to benefit financially from the outcome of their research or opinion, which is why full disclosure is so necessary.

Thanks to Hugh Joseph for this one: Running for the Ribeye.

Team Beef was created in 2009 by the national beef checkoff program, the marketing and research group that requires beef producers and importers to pay a $1-per-head on animals they market. The stated goal is to “promote beef’s health benefits and showcase people leading active and healthy lifestyles fueled by lean beef,” according to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board website. There are more than 20 teams across the country, each independently run by the respective state’s beef board.

…“Team Beef is a collection of runners and athletes … that believe in beef as a powerful protein to fuel their training and their everyday lives,” said Kentucky rancher Joe Lowe, in a promotional video that includes him cheersing his wife Cassie with beef jerky.

…Some states require that team members go through an online, self-guided course called Masters of Beef Advocacy that trains them on how to speak knowledgeably about environmental sustainability, beef nutrition, animal welfare, and beef safety.

Comment

This is a great way to advertise beef, to associate beef with sports, and to deflect attention from the role of beef production in climate change, antibiotic overuse, and pollution of soil, air, and water.  The checkoff program is a partnership with the USDA.  Extremist Republicans want to get rid of checkoff programs (see Project 2025 agenda).  So do I (politics does indeed make strange bedfellows).

The USDA announces updated guidelines for substantiating claims on meat and poultry labels in these categories.

• Animal Welfare Claims
• Breed Claims
• Diet Claims
• Living or Raising Conditions Claims
• Negative Antibiotic Use Claims
• Negative Hormone Use Claims
• Source and Traceability Claims
• Organic Claims
• Environment-Related Claims

It says:

Animal-raising claims, such as “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Grass-Fed” and Free-Range,” and environment-related claims, such as “Raised using Regenerative Agriculture Practices” and “Climate-Friendly,” are voluntary marketing claims that highlight certain aspects of how the source animals for meat and poultry products are raised or how the producer maintains or improves the land or otherwise implements environmentally sustainable practices…FSIS [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service] last updated its guideline on these claims in 2019.

USDA’s new guidance says it “strongly encourages”

• The use of third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims
• Substantiating “no antibiotics” claims by testing for antibiotics or using a third-party certifier who does the testing
• Providing data on soil or air quality studies to substantiate environmental claims

Comment

This guidance is voluntary.

This raises immediate questions about the antibiotic claim.  A study conducted by researchers and policy experts at George Washington University found 20% of cattle marketed as “raised without antibiotics” to have been treated with antibiotics.

You would think that fixing this situation requires mandatory regulation, not voluntary.

Groups concerned about animal welfare also object.  The Animal Welfare Institute wants stronger standards.

The ASPCA issued a press release: “ASPCA Condemns Long-Awaited USDA Guidelines that Fail to Meaningfully Improve Oversight of Animal Welfare Label Claims”

ASPCA’s labeling guide points out that claims for cage-free, humane-raised, and pasture-fed, for example,

which often appear on the packaging of meat, egg and dairy products, may indicate better animal welfare but lack strong standards and have no on-farm verification processes, meaning farm conditions and the treatment of animals vary widely across producers.

Voluntary means that producers can voluntarily ignore such guidelines.  Plenty of evidence suggests that many do.

We need a better system.

• The full guidelines.
• The advance Federal Register notice.

This one was sent to me by a reader: Animal vs. Plant Protein: New Research Suggests That These Protein Sources Are Not Nutritionally Equivalent: Scientists found that two-ounce-equivalents (oz-eq) of animal-based protein foods provide greater essential amino acids (EAA) bioavailability than the same quantity of plant-based protein foods. The study challenges the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) which suggest these protein sources are nutritionally equivalent.

I went right to the study: “Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials” by Gavin Connolly, Joshua L. Hudson, Robert E. Bergia, Eric M. Davis, Austin S. Hartman, Wenbin Zhu, Chad C. Carroll and Wayne W. Campbell, 25 June 2023, Nutrients. DOI: 10.3390/nu15132870

Oh.  It’s in Nutrients, a journal that might as well be called “The Journal of Industry-Funded Research” (authors have to pay for publication of their articles in this journal–2900 Swiss Francs).

The study was designed to demonstrate that protein from animal sources is better than protein from plant sources, immediately raising the question: Who sponsored this study?

Funding: This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.

Do the authors report conflicts of interest?  Yes, they do:

Conflicts of Interets: When this research was conducted, W.W.C. received research funding from the following organizations: American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. C.C.C. received funding from the Beef Checkoff. R.E.B. is currently employed by Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM); the research presented in this article was conducted in a former role and has no connection with ADM. G.C., J.L.H., E.M.D., A.S.H. and W.Z. declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

I’m not going to bother going through the methods, results, or other details.  The point here is that industry-funded research has a high probability of producing results favorable to the sponsors’ interests, as happened in this instance.  The statement that the sponsors had no role may or may not be true; it’s hard to know without further investigation, but research on this question demonstrates that the statement is not always accurate.  Funding exerts influence, whether recognized by researchers or not.

I received an emailed announcement from the  Meat Institute and FMI—the Food Industry Association of its annual report, The Power of Meat.

Here is part of its summary infographic.

The press release quotes Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts:

When shoppers hear ‘protein,’ they think ‘meat,’ and the Meat Institute is actively working to maintain and grow Americans’ confidence about meat’s role in healthy, balanced diets. Our Protein PACT initiative drives progress and provides transparent information about how meat contributes to the health of people, animals, and the planet – which 83% of consumers are looking for when they make meat purchases.

For summary of key findings, see:

• Power of Meat 2024 infographic here
• The Top 10 Findings of the Power of Meat 2024 here

If you want the full report, you have to contact someone at the Meat Institute or FMI.    It will cost you $350 if you are not a member.