Currently browsing posts about: PepsiCo

Just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, government agencies are, at long last, taking action on food issues.

Two examples:

I.  The Federal Trade Commission has issued warning letters to trade associations and dietitian-influencers they paid to promote sugar and aspartame on social media.

The letter to AmeriBev detail concerns about posts on Instagram and TikTok by Valerie Agyeman, Nichole Andrews, Leslie Bonci, Keri Gans, Stephanie Grasso, Cara Harbstreet, Andrea Miller, Idrees Mughal, Adam Pecoraro, and Mary Ellen Phipps, each of whom also received an individual warning letter.

The letter to The Canadian Sugar Institute expresses concerns about Instagram posts by Jenn Messina and Lindsay Pleskot, each of whom also received an individual warning letter.

The letter to American Beverage (formerly the American Beverage Association) gives the “or else.”

We strongly urge you to review your social media policy. You should also review the Instagram, TikTok, and other social media posts made by your endorsers as to whether they contain sufficiently clear and conspicuous disclosures of any material connections to the American Beverage Association. To help guide your review, please see the Endorsement Guides3 and the staff publication FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a federal district court injunction or an administrative cease and desist order

This action comes as a result of the investigative report in the Washington Post (it is cited in the letter).  I wrote about the Post article here and also posted the the response from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The Post investigative team had this to say about the FTC’s warning letters.

Federal regulators announced warnings against two major food and beverage industry groups and a dozen nutrition influencers Wednesday, as part of a broad action to enforce stricter standards for how companies and social media creators disclose paid advertising.

Comment: Let’s hear it for the power of the press!

II.  New York State Attorney General sues PepsiCo for plastic pollution

New York Attorney General Letitia James today filed a historic and groundbreaking lawsuit against PepsiCo Inc. (PepsiCo) for harming the public and the environment with its single-use plastic packaging. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that single-use plastic produced by PepsiCo contributes significantly to high levels of plastic pollution along the Buffalo River, pollution that is contaminating drinking water and harming wildlife.

…PepsiCo, which is headquartered in New York state, manufactures, produces, and packages at least 85 different beverage brands and 25 snack food brands that predominantly come in single-use plastic containers. Plastic packaging has become a persistent and dangerous form of pollution along the shores of the Buffalo River and in its watershed. In 2022, OAG conducted a survey of all types of waste collected at 13 sites along the Buffalo River and its tributaries and found that PepsiCo’s single-use plastic packaging was the most significant. Of the 1,916 pieces of plastic trash collected with an identifiable brand, over 17 percent were produced by PepsiCo. PepsiCo’s plastic packaging far exceeded any other source of this identifiable plastic waste along the river, and it was three times more abundant than the next highest contributor.

According to the New York Times, PepsiCo:

has said it aims to make all of its packaging “recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or reusable” by 2025. The company also says it wants to cut virgin plastic by 50 percent by 2030, compared with 2020.

The company is now being held accountable for that promise.  What a concept!

Comment: While soda-and-bottled-water companies profess commitments to reducing plastic waste, they fight recycling laws (those that require bottle deposits returnable when the bottle is returned) in every way possible.  Attorney General James is doing something quite remarkable; she is holding PepsiCo accountable for some of the externalized costs of producing sodas, bottled water, and snacks.  I hope this sets a strong precedent.  Kudos!

A reader sent me a PepsiCo job announcement sent to dietitians.

CONTRACTOR, SENIOR SCIENTIST: LIFE SCIENCES, SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT TEAM

The PepsiCo Life Sciences Engagement Team is responsible for strategic coordination and execution of Life Science related internal and external science communication and partnership programs to help achieve growth by transforming our product portfolio to meet our PEP+ goals for added sugars, saturated fat and sodium reduction.

We are looking for a Senior Scientist to support our team that drives engagement to build external scientific credibility of our brands among key opinion leaders and consumer influencers and to help deliver internal education to equip our PepsiCo colleagues with relevant nutrition knowledge about our portfolio transformation journey.

Among the job responsibilities are to work on:

• The AND conference and expo (the exhibits) in Denver, October 2023
• Education tools and messages for PepsiCo Life Science
  Social media, website
• Competitor assessment on scientific communications
• Educational materials related to sports nutrition and hydration

The job requires

• Master’s degreMe in nutrition or a closely related field
• Registered Dietitian preferred, but not required
• 0-2 years of experience at a major food manufacturer or related experience (recent graduate acceptable)

Pepsi Life Sciences offers continuing education credits to dietitians.  Examples:

• Unpacking Preconceptions About Packaged Foods
• The Science of Sweetness: Taste and Learn

Comment

• PepsiCo may own Quaker Oats, but most of its products are ultra-processed and best minimized or avoided.
• Dietitians ought to be advising clients and the public to avoid ultra-processed foods (especially sugary drinks). from PepsiCo.
• PepsiCo employs dietitians.  That way it can boast about its nutrition initiatives.
• Dietitians who choose to work for PepsiCo are co-opted; they become part of the company’s marketing initiatives.

I just hope the job pays really well.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY on Zoom: 11:00 a.m.  Register here.

*******

I’m always fascinated by the food industry’s rationale for massive layoffs.

PepsiCo, for example.

It is planning to lay off hundreds of workers (see Washington Post announcement, and Food Navigator discussion).

The Wall Street Journal report’s Pepsi’s rationale:
PepsiCo Inc. PEP -0.37% is laying off workers at the headquarters of its North American snacks and beverages divisions, a signal that corporate belt-tightening is extending beyond tech and media, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal…In a memo sent to staff that was viewed by the Journal, PepsiCo told employees that the layoffs were intended “to simplify the organization so we can operate more efficiently.”

PepsiCo reported a 12% increase in revenues last year.

Its global revenues came close to $80 billion in 2021.

PepsiCo Beverages North America’s operating profit has recently decreased by 10%,

primarily reflecting certain operating cost increases, including incremental transportation costs, a 37-percentage-point impact of higher commodity costs and higher advertising and marketing expenses. These impacts were partially offset by net revenue growth and productivity savings.

It paid its CEO $25,506,607 in 2021.  This is 500 times more than the median employee salary of $52,000.

That’s how the system works.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Thanks to Hugh Joseph for sending this piece on PepsiCo’s commitment to regenerative agriculture in its supply chains: From regenerative ag to reformulation: A deep-dive into how PepsiCo is ‘reimagining the way food is grown, made and enjoyed’

When PepsiCo launched Pep+ in October 2021, the company said it wanted to ‘fundamentally change’ how it does business for the betterment of people and planet​. From ingredient sourcing and production to supporting consumers make choices that are ‘better for themselves and the planet’, Pep+ outlined an ambitious agenda of business transformation.  The company wants to:

•  Spur transition to regenerative practices across land that is equivalent to its entire agricultural footprint, approximately seven million acres.
• Reduce reliance on chemical inputs (but does not rule out their use).
• Secure the future of farming communities and farmer incomes.
• Support farmers by helping them with high fuel and fertilizer costs.
• Support rural communities – and female farmers in particular.
• Transition towards more than 70% of the company’s global electricity needs in direct operations are met by renewables.
• Reach net zero emissions by 2040.
• Improved operational water-use efficiency by 18% in high water-risk areas.
• Use 100% rPET by the end of this year, contributing to 87% of PepsiCo-owned drinks portfolio in the European Union being made using 100% recycled or renewable plastic.
• Eliminate virgin fossil-based plastic in all crisp and chip bags..

And then there are Pepsi’s nutrition objectives [recall: Pepsi makes snack brands like Walkers and Dorito alongside its line-up of fizzy drinks].

Use more chickpeas, plant-based proteins and wholegrains.

Expand nuts and seeds category.

In Europe, cut added sugars in its soft drinks by 50% .

Improve the nutritional quality of snack products.

My questions:

• Is this real or greenwashing and healthwashing?
• Who is holding Pepsi accountable for achieving these objectives?

The larger question is whether Pepsi’s portfolio of snack foods and sugary drinks can ever be sustainable?

In 2011, I was quoted in a New Yorker article about Pepsi’s health initiatives.

As part of PepsiCo’s commitment to being “the good company,” the corporation wants to play a leading role in public-health issues, and particularly in the battle against obesity. Some people think this is ludicrous. Marion Nestle, the author of “Food Politics” and a professor of food studies at N.Y.U., told me, “The best thing Pepsi could do for worldwide obesity would be to go out of business.”

I probably wouldn’t use the word ludicrous (and I’m not sure I did then), but the effort was certainly unrealistic.

Like all publicly traded corporations, PepsiCo is heavily constrained by shareholder profit objectives.

A decade ago, its shareholders objected to a focus on public health when sales of Pepsi declined.

Has anything changed since then?

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

A reader in Australia, Anthony Power, sent me this one, which he noticed discussed in an article in the Australian The Conversation.”

This one is not obviously funder takes all.  Indeed, it might need to be categorized as a rare example of an industry-funded study with results unfavorable to the sponsor’s interests.

The study: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effects of Oats and Oat Processing on Postprandial Blood Glucose and Insulin Responses.  Kathy Musa-Veloso, Daniel Noori, Carolina Venditti , Theresa Poon ¹, Jodee Johnson ², Laura S Harkness ², Marianne O’Shea ², YiFang Chu ²  J Nutr.  2021 Feb 1;151(2):341-351.  doi: 10.1093/jn/nxaa349.

Objectives: The study objective was to determine the effects of differently processed oats on the postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses relative to refined grains.

Conclusions: A disruption in the structural integrity of the oat kernel is likely associated with a loss in the glycemic benefits of oats.

Funding: The systematic review and meta-analysis, as well as the writing of the manuscript, were funded by PepsiCo, Inc.

Conflicts of interest: Author disclosures: KM-V, DN, CV, and TP are employees of Intertek Health   ciences Inc., which has provided consulting services to PepsiCo, Inc. JJ, MO, and YC are employees of PepsiCo, Inc., which manufactures oatmeal products under the brand name Quaker Oats and which funded this systematic review and meta-analysis. LSH is a former employee of PepsiCo, Inc. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the opinion or policies of Intertek Health Sciences Inc. or PepsiCo, Inc.

Comment: Oats are good sources of soluble fiber which in some studies helps lower blood cholesterol levels.  PepsiCo owns Quaker Oats, which makes oatmeals of varying degree of integrity.  The least processed ones, according to this review, do the best job.  This means that quick oats have less of a beneficial effect than the longer-to-cook less processed varieties.  As the paper puts it: “The postprandial glycemic and insulin responses
with thin/instant/quick oats were not significantly different from those elicited by the refined grain control.”

PepsiCo currently extols the health benefits of oatmeal on its website, without making a distinction between the Instant and Need-to-be-Cooked-Longer varieties.  Will it change its website in response to this study?  We will see in due course.

The study: Effects of Unsweetened Preloads and Preloads Sweetened with Caloric or Low-/No-Calorie Sweeteners on Subsequent Energy Intakes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Human Intervention Studies.  Han Youl Lee, Maia Jack, Theresa Poon, Daniel Noori, Carolina Venditti, Samer Hamamji, Kathy Musa-Veloso.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 12, Issue 4, July 2021, Pages 1481–1499.

Methods: Review and meta-analysis of previously published studies.

Conclusions: Unsweetened or LNCS-sweetened preloads appear to have similar effects on intakes when compared with one another or with CS-sweetened preloads. These findings suggest that LNCS-sweetened foods and beverages are viable alternatives to CS-sweetened foods and beverages to manage short-term energy intake.

Funder: “The American Beverage Association provided funding for the work presented herein.”

Author disclosures: MJ is a paid employee of the American Beverage Association. Intertek Health Sciences, Inc.(HYL, TP, DN, CV, SH, KMV), works for the American Beverage Association as paid scientific and regulatory consultants.”

Comment: The great puzzle about artificial sweeteners is that they are not strongly associated with reduced calorie intake in most studies, perhaps because sweet tastes encourage people to eat more calories.  This industry-funded study is designed to counter that idea.  It concludes that low- or no-calorie sweeteners have no special effect on calorie intake.  The American Beverage Association represents soft drink companies, predominantly Coke and Pepsi, most of them manufacturing drinks sweetened with sugars or high-fructose corn syrup (with calories) or chemical sweeteners (no or low-calorie).  These companies are happy to have you buy either kind, and they don’t want you worrying about all the things you’ve heard about artificial sweeteners.

The Association’s rules for research are here.   But it is unlikely to fund proposals for research that might come up with inconvenient conclusions.

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.

Dietary Patterns and Nutritional Status in Relation to Consumption of Chickpeas and Hummus in the U.S. Population.  by  Cara L. Frankenfeld and Taylor C. Wallace.   Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(20), 7341; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207341

Conclusion: ” Adults who consumed chickpeas and hummus were 48% and 62% less likely to have metabolic syndrome, respectively. Consuming chickpeas or hummus may be a practical means of improving diet quality and nutritional status. ”

Funding:  This research was funded by an investigator-initiated, unrestricted educational grant from Sabra Dipping Co., LLC.

Comment: That’s what they all say about the sponsor’s role, despite substantial evidence to the contrary (in many other cases).  Sabra is owned by PepsiCo.

Hat tip: To Daniel Bowmn Simon for sending me this one.

As a general rule, industry-funded studies produce results favorable to the sponsor’s interests.  But what have we here?

The study: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effects of Oats and Oat Processing on Postprandial Blood Glucose and Insulin Responses.  Kathy Musa-Veloso, Daniel Noori, Carolina Venditti, Theresa Poon, Jodee Johnson, Laura S Harkness, Marianne O’Shea, YiFang Chu.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 151, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages 341–351.

Results: the consumption of thick—but not thin—oat flakes was associated with significant reductions in postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses.

Conclusion: “Relative to a refined grain control food with the same amount of available carbohydrate, the postprandial glycemic and insulin responses elicited by intact oat kernels and thick oats were significantly reduced. The postprandial glycemic and insulin responses with thin/instant/quick oats were not significantly different from those elicited by the refined grain control.”

Funding: The systematic review and meta-analysis, as well as the writing of the manuscript, were funded by PepsiCo, Inc.

Author disclosures: “KM-V, DN, CV, and TP are employees of Intertek Health Sciences Inc., which has provided consulting services to PepsiCo, Inc. JJ, MO, and YC are employees of PepsiCo, Inc., which manufactures oatmeal products under the brand name Quaker Oats and which funded this systematic review and meta-analysis. LSH is a former employee of PepsiCo, Inc.  The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policies of Intertek Health Sciences Inc. or PepsiCo, Inc.”

Comment:  This is a PepsiCo study paid for by the company and conducted by employees or contractors.  PepsiCo owns Quaker Oats instant oatmeal.  In the late 1980s, oat bran was a craze.  Everyone I knew was sprinkling oat bran on everything they ate as a means to reduce their blood cholesterol levels.  Even then, there were real questions about whether oats had any special effects on blood cholesterol levels.   But the idea has persisted.  This study demonstrates that oats might have metabolic benefits, but only if they are thick, whole-grain, and minimally processed.  Instant oatmeal is not in that category.  I wonder what the company’s reaction is to this study, whether it intends to fund more like it, and whether it will us thicker oats in its Quaker products.