Search results: app

I’ve posted several studies sponsored by the blueberry industry , most recently on their effects on menopausal symptoms.  Blueberry trade associations, as I discuss in my book Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat, led the way in promoting research suggesting this fruit is a “superfood.”

If only.

They are still at it, apparently, but sponsorship does not always guarantee the desired outcome.  Here is a rare exception to the rule that industry-sponsored studies almost invariably give results favorable to the sponsor’s marketing interest.  Let’s give credit where it is due.

• The study:  Chronic and postprandial effect of blueberries on cognitive function, alertness, and mood in participants with metabolic syndrome – results from a six-month, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  Available online 6 February 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.006
• Methods: “A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted, assessing the primary effect of consuming freeze-dried blueberry powder, compared against an isocaloric placebo, on cardiometabolic health >6 mo and a 24 h postprandial period (at baseline).”
• Results: “Postprandial self-rated calmness significantly improved after 1 cup of blueberries (P = 0.01; q = 0.04; with an 11.6% improvement compared with baseline between 0 and 24 h for the 1 cup group), but all other mood, sleep, and cognitive function parameters were unaffected after postprandial and 6-mo blueberries.”
• Conclusion: “Although self-rated calmness improved postprandially, and significant cognition-metabolite associations were identified, our data did not support strong cognitive, mood, alertness, or sleep quality improvements in MetS participants after blueberry intervention.”
• Conflict of interest: “AC reports financial support provided by the US Highbush Blueberry Council (USHBC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC, UK). AC and EBR both act as advisors and consultants to the United States Highbush Blueberry Council grant committee. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.”
• Funding: “This work was supported by the United States Highbush Blueberry Council with oversight from the USDA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (United Kingdom). The funders of this research had no involvement in this publication and have placed no restrictions on the publication of these data.”

Comment: In this instance, the last statement could well be correct (it isn’t always, alas).  I like blueberries but they are not a superfood.  There is no such thing as a superfood.  If you want to eat healthfully, by all means eat fruit—and enjoy the ones you like best.

I learned about this from reading a headline in FoodNavigator-Asia: Mediterranean diet linked to reduced neurodegeneration in elderly Chinese.

This got my attention: Why would anyone be studying the Mediterranean diet in Chinese people.  The traditional Chinese diet, like that of the Mediterranean diet, is largely plant-based and strongly associated with health and longevity.

But here we have it.  Basically, they want to know if this diet works in Chinese as well as North American and Oceanic populations.  As so it does.

The study: Association of adherence to the Chinese version of the MIND diet with reduced cognitive decline in older Chinese individuals: Analysis of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey.  The Journal of nutrition, health and aging.  Available online 1 January 2024, 100024

• Purpose: This study aimed to assess the correlation between the Chinese version of the MIND (cMIND) diet and cognitive impairment in older Chinese individuals.  [MIND = Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay].
• Method: The cMIND diet score (cMINDDS) was calculated by assessing dietary patterns based on survey responses.
• Results: The increased cMINDDS was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment. Higher consumption of fresh fruits and nuts was associated with a decreased risk of cognitive impairment (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: [0.66, 0.89] and OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.58, 0.86], respectively).
• Conclusion: Adherence to the cMIND diet was associated with lower risks of cognitive impairment in older Chinese individuals.

About the diets

The MIND diet recommended 10 brain-healthy food groups (green leafy vegetables, other vegetables, nuts, berries, soybeans, whole grains, not fried fish, not fried poultry, olive oil, and wine) while avoiding five unhealthy groups (red meat and products, butter/margarine, cheese, pastries and sweets, and fast fried foods).

The cMIND diet comprises 12 components: staple food composition, quantity, fresh vegetables, mushrooms or algae, fresh fruits, fish, cooking oil, soybeans, nuts, garlic, tea, and sugar.

Here’s a quick comparison:

Comment:  Both diets are healthy.

Bottom line (can’t be emphasized enough, apparently): Eating a healthy diet is good for health.

I learned about this one from a commentary from Yoni Freedhoff, MD: Kimchi: Not Magically Protective Against Weight Gain.

• The study: Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study.  BMJ Open.  2024 Jan 30;14(2):e076650.  doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076650.
• Participants: “This study analysed 115 726 participants aged 40-69 years enrolled in the Health Examinees study in Korea.”
• Results: “In men, total kimchi consumption of 1-3 servings/day was related to a lower prevalence of obesity (OR: 0.875 in 1-2 servings/day and OR: 0.893 in 2-3 servings/day) compared with total kimchi consumption of <1 serving/day. Also, men with the highest baechu kimchi (cabbage kimchi) consumption had 10% lower odds of obesity and abdominal obesity. Participants who consumed kkakdugi (radish kimchi) ≥median were inversely associated with 8% in men and 11% in women with lower odds of abdominal obesity compared with non-consumers, respectively.”
• Conclusions:  “This large cross-sectional study described the association between kimchi consumption and obesity. In conclusion, total kimchi consumption of 1–3 servings/day was shown to be reversely associated with obesity in men. Regarding the type of kimchi, baechu kimchi was associated with a lower prevalence of obesity in men, and kkakdugi was associated with a lower prevalence of abdominal obesity in both men and women. However, since all results showed a ‘J-shaped’ association, excessive consumption suggests the potential for an increase in obesity prevalence. As kimchi is one of the major sources of sodium intake, a moderate amount of kimchi should be recommended for the health benefits of its other components. In addition, further investigation and prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationship between kimchi consumption and obesity.”
• Competing interests: “HJ and SS have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study. Y-RY and SWH are members of the staff at the World Institute of Kimchi.”
• Funding: “This research was supported by grants from the World Institute of Kimchi (KE2201-1) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea.”

Dr. Freedhoff ‘s analysis of the data:

According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.

Comment: Why anyone would expect kimchi (spicy fermented vegetables such as cabbage) to affect obesity one way or the other is beyond me, but the World Institute of Kimchi must want more people to eat it.  Does anyone need an excuse to eat kimchi?  It’s great on its own without needing this kind of claim.  This study is about marketing, not science.

I’m constantly being asked what food will look like in the future, so I’ve been collecting items about new-and-unusual foods headed our way.

Do these bode well for the future of food?  You decide.

New Foods

• New nutritional substitute? Donkey milk touted as potential ingredient for infant and ageing products: Researchers have argued that the rich and diverse content of proteins in donkey milk could promote cell growth and proliferation, stimulate the immune system, exert anti-ageing effects, and possess antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties…. Read more
• How can industry turn the tide on seaweed consumption?  In Europe, many consumers associated seaweed with the rotting, smelly kelp that washes up on beaches. How can industry cultivate consumer appetite for marine plants?… Read more
• Cactus cookies and banana peel snacks among foods of the future:  Several food products that were designed to regenerate the planet have been invited to the next stage of the Big Food Redesign Challenge…. Read more
• ‘Insects will be seen as normal food’: How industry is combatting consumer reluctance to eat insect protein:  Insects are not only thought to contain at least as much protein as conventional meat, but are also more environmentally sustainable. However, their novelty on the market poses challenges in consumer acceptance. How do start-ups persuade consumers to eat them?… Read more 
• Business Insider Starbucks launched a pork-flavored coffee in China:  The beverage, whose name translates into “Abundant Year Savory Latte,” is pictured with a slice of skewered pork perched on top of a mug.  .Read More

Cultivated meat

• Introducing meat–rice: grain with added muscles beefs up protein:  The laboratory-grown food uses rice as a scaffold for cultured meat…Using rice as the scaffold has the benefit of adding nutrition to the rice, with the beef–rice having a slightly higher fat and protein content than standard rice.
• Not halal just yet: Singapore Islamic Council says ‘more rigorous’ parameters must be fulfilled for cultivated meat to be halal-certified: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) has highlighted that cultivated meat still needs to meet a ‘more rigorous’ set of requirements to be halal-certified, even though it has been deemed potentially permissible for halal consumption…. Read more

Comment: It’s a brave new world out there.  Two issues:  (1) Is this stuff delicious?  (2) Will it make money?  Stay tuned.

A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post explains why the FDA should establish front-of-package nutrition labeling here and now: These countries are doing nutrition labels the right way

Christina Roberto, Alyssa Moran, and Kelly Brownell contrast the “stop signs you’ll see in Mexico, the Nutri-Score system used in France, or the Health Star Ratings in New Zealand” with the current lack of a system like those in the United States.

The only thing standing in the way: the food industry. It favors a label that displays grams or milligrams of key nutrients along with percent Daily Values — much like the Nutrition Facts Labelcurrently on the back or side of packages. ..By using symbols, colors and simple language, front-of-package labels adopted by other countries have educated people about what’s in their food, helped them make healthier choices and even encouraged companies to reduce salt and sugar in their products.

And here’s Fortune on the same topic, especially Nutri-Score.

This makes me think it’s time to review what’s happening in Europe with Nutri-Score.  I’ve written about this system previously, most recently here and about Its founder, Serge Hercberg’s, fights with the food industry here.

As a reminder, Nutri-Score accounts for nutrients but also sugar, salt, and saturated fat, in a composite grade A (eat) to E (avoid).

The food industry hates it.  For example, an article by authors with ties to industry argues that there is no independent evidence to support the value of Nutri-Score.  This induced Hercberg et al to rebut those points.

In response to some of these criticisms, the Nutri-Score team is updating its algorithm to respond to concerns about ultra-processing, among other matters.  See: Nutri-Score 2023 Update in Nature Food.

And despite the arguments, support for Nutri-Score is growing.  Authors not connected to Nutri-Score recommend it over other types of labeling for adoption by 27 EU nations.  See: Establishing an EU-wide front-of-pack nutrition label: Review of options and model-based evaluation.  Obesity Reviews, 07 February 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13719

Nutri-Score is currently used in seven European countries.  It is backed by the European Public Health Association and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The food industry can complain all it wants, I’m guessing Nutri-Score is here to stay.  It may not capture all ultra-processed foods, but it comes close and revising the design like this should help solve that problem.

Since it’s Monday when I post industry-funded studies anyway, I will add one more of these to last week’s collection.

This one comes from an articles in The Conversation: Big companies, like Nestlé, are funding health research in South Africa – why this is wrong.

At the time a group of more than 200 senior academics wrote an open letter, about conflicts of interest. Nestlé’s portfolio of foods, by its own admission, includes more than 60% that don’t meet the definition of healthy products.

In December last year, the same centre announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé. It signalled their intent to “forge a transformative partnership” to shape “the future of food and nutrition research and education” and transform “Africa’s food systems”.

Two examples of  beef-industry attempted influence:

I.  Science teachers

This one comes from Wired: Inside the Beef Industry’s Campaign to Influence Kids

Big Beef is wooing science teachers with webinars and lesson plans in an attempt to change kids’ perceptions of the industry.

A beef industry group is running a campaign to influence science teachers and other educators in the US. Over the past eight years, the American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA) has produced industry-backed lesson plans, learning resources, in-person events, and webinars as part of a program to boost the cattle industry’s reputation.

What is the AFBFA?

The AFBFA is a contractor to Beef Checkoff, a US-wide program in which beef producers and importers pay a per-animal fee that funds programs to boost beef demand in the US and abroad. In 2024, Beef Checkoff has approximately $42 million to disperse across its initiatives, and a funding request reveals that the AFBFA’s campaign for 2024 is projected to cost $800,000. The allocation of Beef Checkoff funding to programs like this is approved by members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and the Federation of State Beef Councils, two groups that represent the cattle industry in the US.

What does this program teach?

One lesson plan provided as part of the program directs students to beef industry resources to help devise a school menu. In another lesson plan students are directed to create a presentation for a conservation agency regarding the introduction of cattle into their ecological preserve. A worksheet aimed at younger students has them practice their sums by adding up the acreage of cow pastures. Another worksheet based around a bingo game aimed at 8- to 11-year-olds asks teachers to “remind students that lean beef is a nutritions source of protein that can be incorporated in daily meals.”

As for the answer to my question yesterday about whether this kind of training works:

According to survey data included in these documents, educators who attended at least one of the AFBFA’s programs were 8 percent more likely to trust positive statements about the beef industry. Some 82 percent of educators who participated in a program had a positive perception of how cattle are raised, and 85 percent believed that the beef industry is “very important” to society.

Again, this is a USDA-sponsored checkoff program.  The US Dietary Guidelines on beef call for it to be lean and unprocessed.  The checkoff does not.

II.  Public health professionals

I received this e-mailed message from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

I am a member of the Kentucky Public Health Association and so receive their email newsletters. The Beef Council promotion is fairly new. It is interesting to watch an industry PR campaign with health professionals happen in real time. I’ve also just realized that I don’t believe the Association has policies around sponsorships, something I had not worried about until the past few months.

She forwarded two messages sent to her from the Kentucky Public Health Association.  These are announcements from the Kentucky Beef Council: “Happy Nationl Nutrition Month,” and “Fueling Tween and Teens with Strong Minds and Bodies.”

The second is labeled as an advertisement; the first is not.

Both encourage visits to the Beef Nutrition Education Hub to get free continuing education credits and other resources.

Both say:

Thank you to our 38,000 Kentucky Beef Farmers! Fun Fact: Kentucky is the largest beef-producing state East of the Mississippi River

This email was sent on behalf of KY Beef Council and the content within shall be attributed to the sponsor. This email shall not indicate an endorsement on behalf of KPHA.

Copyright © 2023  Kentucky Public Health Association

Comment:  The Kentucky Beef Checkoff at work!   Regardless of the Kentucky Public Health Association’s protestations, these messages give the appearance of endorsement.  It should not be doing this.

Lately, I have been asked repeatedly to explain just how the food industry exerts influence to protect and promote product sales.  This week’s posts address that question, starting with the usual Monday industry-funded study of the week, in this case an opinion piece sponsored by the potato industry.

Potato trade associations work hard to overcome concerns about this food’s rapidly absorbable starch content.

I received an email from the Alliance for Potato Research & Education telling me that if I don’t eat potatoes, I might become nutritionally deficient.

New publication alert: swapping out starchy vegetables may lead to unintended nutrition consequences.

A new perspective paper published in Frontiers in Nutrition underscores starchy vegetables are more than just carbs – they’re a vital vehicle for essential nutrients. Yet, as confusion around “good versus bad carbs” persists among consumers, there is a risk of starchy vegetable avoidance in favor of other carbohydrate foods perceived as equally or more nutritious – or even carbohydrate avoidance all together.

The press release cited a paper with this conclusion:

Replacing starchy vegetables with grain-based alternatives, including whole-grain foods, for one day led to a 21% decrease in potassium, a 17% decrease in vitamin B6, an 11% drop in vitamin C and a 10% reduction in fiber.

This called for a look at the actual paper.

The paper: Carbohydrate confusion and dietary patterns: unintended public health consequences of “food swapping.”   Ayoob, K.  Front. Nutr., 28 September 2023. Volume 10 – 2023 |

Rationale: “Nutrient-dense dietary patterns include both grain foods and starchy vegetables. These food groups are currently considered separately [by the Dietary Guidelines for Americana], and they must remain separate to ensure people are encouraged to consume complementary nutrients from each of these food groups.”

Conclusion: “Using complex carbohydrate foods, specifically starchy vegetables (e.g., potatoes) and grains, interchangeably is at best, not a useful strategy, but at worst, may increase the risk of micronutrient inadequacy and/or dietary imbalances.”

Funding: “The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding for this perspective was provided by Potatoes USA.”

Conflict of interest: “This study received funding from Potatoes USA. The funder had the following involvement with the study: composition and data analysis of the menu modeling. KA was compensated by Potatoes USA for preparation and revision of the manuscript.  The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.”

Comment: I like potatoes, think they have nutritional value (especially when baked rather than fried), and do not view them as poison.  But: this paper is an opinion piece commissioned, developed, and paid for by a potato trade association.  And sent to me in a press release.