I”m feeling wonky this morning and can’t resist commenting on Senator Ted Cruz’s remarks about the US sugar program.

According to BuzzFeed,

while railing against “corporate welfare,” Cruz singled out subsidies for the sugar industry — a policy Rubio has consistently, and controversially, supported despite objections by free-market critics.

“Sugar farmers farm under roughly 0.2% of the farmland in America, and yet they give 40% of the lobbying money,” Cruz said in the debate. “That sort of corporate welfare is why we’re bankrupting our kids, and grandkids.”

Chase Purdy of Politico quoted Cruz as saying “I would end those subsidies to pay for defending this nation.”

Only that’s not how the sugar program works. Subsidies for U.S. sugar producers are provided by consumers, through artificially high prices, rather than by the government. Rather than direct subsidies, the sugar program involves limiting import and supporting prices, leading to U.S. sugar prices that are higher than sugar on the global market.

Politico also investigated “40% of the lobbying money.”

Forty percent of what? It’s not clear. But it’s hard to imagine any way to get there. Total spending on lobbying was $3.24 billion last year, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Agribusiness spent $127.5 million, or about 4 percent. The sugar cane and sugar beets industry? $9.6 million, or 0.3 percent.

I love writing about our arcane sugar policies, which do indeed involve quotas and tariffs, but not subsidies.  The USDA explains sugar policies on its website.  The important ones:

• Domestic Price Support
• Flexible Marketing Allotments
• Disposition of Sugar Owned by the CCC
• Sugar Tariff-Rate Quotas and Other Trade Measures

Sugarcane growers have their own explanation of how the system protects them.

And because politics makes strange bedfellows, the Heritage Foundation’s explains how US sugar policies gouge US consumers, costing us more money than sugar consumers anywhere else.

From a public health standpoint, higher prices for cane and beet sugar aren’t all that bad if they encourage people to consume less.

But on a per person basis, the increased cost isn’t all that much: on the order of $10 per capita per year.

This explains the lack of public opposition to the policies.  They are hard to notice at the grocery store.

It also explains why  food companies prefer using high fructose corn syrup.  It’s cheaper.  Corn production, after all, does get subsidies for crop insurance.  But then, we use corn to make ethanol.

Aren’t ag policies fun?  No wonder candidates don’t understand them.

When I was in San Francisco last week, I met Janna Cordeiro and Real Food Challenge students from San Francisco State University (SFSU) who are taking on Big Soda.  As Janna explained in an e-mail,

Last spring, SFSU administration quietly released an RFP to solicit a corporate sponsor for Pouring Rights.

The Pouring Rights contract —for a 1 time minimum $2 Million donation and yearly $125K donation— not only includes 80% access to all drinks sold on campus, naming rights for the sports stadiums (and scholarships, seats, etc), access to students and alum for social media campaigns, access to STUDENT-owned campus center, and on and on BUT also an endowed chair in the school of the sponsor’s choice. Pepsi Professor anyone?

She points out that “The students believe that the release of the RFP violated important shared governance agreements that guide the campus, and that it was intentionally kept very low profile.”

She also notes that since San Francisco’s soda tax campaign, several high profile policies limiting SSBs have been passed:

1) City of SF has passed 2 important pieces of legislation: warning label requirements on ads,  ban on use of city funds to purchase ssbs (including the many contractors such as Department of Children Youth and Families), and ban on sub ads on city property

2) The SFUSD passed a comprehensive wellness policy which bans all sugary drinks sold or offered on school grounds including fundraisers/festivals/ and staff/teachers drinking.

3) Most major hospitals are SSB free INCLUDING all of UCSF campuses and our public hospital.

This means:

Essentially, SFSU and our City College Campuses are the only public spaces where SSBs are sold or advertised. So, we can’t let the SFSU administration go through with this, and this group of students from the Real Food Challenge SFSU are stepping up to fight back. Let’s join them and show our support!  They have already organized demonstrations when PepsiCo and Coca-Cola were on campus for their presentations, but have much more planned. The also have a 15 page resolution that covers ALL the bases!

And here’s her call to action:

What can you do?

1. Sign the petition:   Lots of information on this page so it’s a great place to start. 

2. Send them a letter of support for them to give the SFSU President Wong who has agreed to meet with them on Nov 19th in an open Town Hall mtg. email: realfoodchallengesfsu@gmail.com

3. If you’re local, attend the Town Hall meeting at 12noon on 11/19. Location TBD. Invite on Facebook.

4. Follow on Facebook—  show your support and Tweet about it. I’ve been pushing out tweets on OpenTruthNow if you need ideas.

5. If you have connections, help them get high visibility MEDIA attention. Contact me directly, and I can send you the media contact. for the group.

Let’s help them CRUSH Big Soda ! Student Rights not Pouring Rights!

Onwards!

Additions

November 13: The San Francisco Chronicle has a discussion of this action (I’m quoted)

November 19: The SFSU president drops the soda partnership proposal!

The first report is from the UK.   Fat Chance? Exploring the Evidence on Who Becomes Obese is a curious example of what happens when a sugar company (AB Sugar) partners with a health organization (2020 Health) to produce a policy document.

The report examines the role of age, gender, socioeconomic factors, the built environment, mental health and disability, sleep, bullying and child abuse, smoking, ethnicity, and religion as factors in obesity—everything except diet and activity levels.

The press release for the report gives key findings, among them:

• Obesity rates are rising rapidly among the poor as well as other groups who experience social instability.
• Uncertainty seems to be a significant factor for weight gain.
• Fast food outlets near working environments have a significant impact on the BMI of men; the lack of green space has an impact on obesity rates particularly among girls.
• Half of all people suffering with psychosis are obese.
• Parental obesity, especially in mothers, is a far more predictive factor in childhood obesity than is ethnicity.

Its authors write:

What is particularly highlighted in recent research, though rarely explicitly stated, is that obesity rates seem to be deeply influenced by social change (not just influences within static social categories). The studies we have compiled for this review show a subtle trend that has become increasingly evident over the last decade. It is highlighted in economic mobility, rising rates of mental illness, technological habits and engagements, and rapidly shifting urban ground. Argued here, broadly speaking, is that many of these categories strongly hint to a meta-structure that remains profoundly under-researched and largely ignored. This is the structure of uncertainty, a type of habitus that influences the terms of emotional engagement between an individual and their daily life. Insidiously, it undermines health seeking behaviour by making daily decision processes cognitively intolerable and emotionally taxing.

They conclude:

…approaches to obesity that recognise and incorporate complexity might impact a host of rising health problems that affect communities across Britain. The same interventions that encourage healthy BMI may improve energy levels through metabolic process and sleeping habits, while reducing risk of mental health problems, diabetes and a range of other comorbidities not discussed in this report.

But they don’t say what those interventions might be.

Could they possibly have something to do with removing sugary drinks and foods from local environments?

For doing just that, the World Cancer Research Fund International has produced Curbing Global Sugar Consumption: Effective Food Policy Actions to Help Promote Healthy Diets & Tackle Obesity.

Examples of actions which have had these effects include school nutrition standards in Queensland, Australia; a vending machine ban in France; a front-of-package symbol that led to product reformulation in the Netherlands; soda taxes in France and Mexico; a programme targeting retail environments in New York City, USA; a programme promoting increased water consumption in schools in Hungary; school fruit and vegetable programmes in Netherlands and Norway; a healthy marketing campaign in Los Angeles County, USA and a comprehensive nutrition and health programme in France.

The first report asks us to solve problems of poverty, instability, and mental health before taking action to prevent obesity, even when actions are known to be effective.  The second calls for such actions now.

Could AB Sugar’s sponsorship possibly have something to do with this difference?

On Friday, the University of Colorado School of Medicine announced that it was giving back the $1 million that Coca-Cola had donated to fund the Global Energy Balance Network.

This is the group of scientists funded by Coca-Cola who were promoting activity as the best way to prevent obesity, but playing down any contribution of soft drinks and junk food to weight gain (see my post on this).

This is the fourth impressive result of the investigative report by Anahad O’Connor in the New York Times in August that revealed Coca-Cola’s funding of such initiatives.

1. Coke’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, disclosed that the company had spent almost $120 million since 2010 to pay for partnerships with medical and community health groups, and promised that the company would be more transparent.
2. Coca-Cola set up a transparency website where it revealed the list of funded organizations.
3. Coke ended its relationships with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy for Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Practice (or these groups pulled out—everyone seems to want to credit).
4. Now this. Coke says it will donate the returned money to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

I am quoted in this story:

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, called the network “a front group” for Coca-Cola intended to promote the message that obesity is primarily caused by a lack of exercise, not by overconsumption of junk food.

On Friday, Dr. Nestle, the author of “Soda Politics,” said she was pleased that the university had returned the money.

“Both deserve congratulations for making a difficult but necessary decision,” said Dr. Nestle. “Let’s hope other groups also decide to do the right thing and end such financial relationships.”

Next?

Yael Raviv.  Falafel Nation: Cuisine and the Making of National Identity in Israel.  University of Nebraska Press, 2015.

Yael Raviv is an adjunct instructor in my department at NYU and has been researching and working on this book since I have known her.

The cuisine of Israel is trendy right now, something that Raviv could not possibly have guessed when she began this project.

Although her book focuses on the years from the Zionist immigration wave beginning in 1905 (the Second Aliya) and the 1967 Six-Day War, it deals with older and more recent ways in which food affected and was affected by the complexities and contradictions of religion, ethnicity, nationalism, and subsequent waves of immigration in this country.

Raviv is not claiming that food can solve the political problems of the region, but her book demonstrates that food can help us understand them.

The Physicans Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group advocating against use of animals in research but for vegetarian and vegan diets, has started a campaign to restore egg-and-cholesterol recommendations to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Eggs are the largest source of cholesterol in American diets.

The campaign involves billboards like this one, in six locations in Texas:

It also involves a new organization (truthaboutegg.org) with an interactive website on a dozen issues related to egg production and consumption.

The one that particularly caught my eye was #5.

A 2013 review suggested that high-cholesterol foods have only a modest effect on blood cholesterol. Of the 12 studies it relied on, 11 were industry-funded.

In a letter to Congressman K. Michael Conaway (Rep-TX), Dr. Neal Barnard, PCRM’s president, wrote:

This week, billboards near your Texas offices will alert you to the dangers Americans face if cholesterol warnings are removed…Eggs are the leading source of cholesterol in the American diet.  A report (which I’ve included for your review) in the autumn 2015 Good Medicine magazine finds that this recommendation may have been influenced by egg-industry-funded cholesterol research. America’s heart disease and diabetes epidemics will continue unabated if the egg industry succeeds in its efforts to get cholesterol warnings out of the guidelines.

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) said this about dietary cholesterol.

Cholesterol. Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.^2,35.  Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.

The DGAC based its unconcern about dietary cholesterol on two references:

2.  Eckel RH, Jakicic JM, Ard JD, de Jesus JM, Houston Miller N, Hubbard VS, et al. 2013 AHA/ACC guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(25 Suppl 2):S76-99. PMID: 24222015. Its conclusion:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL–C.

35.  Shin JY, Xun P, Nakamura Y, He K. Egg consumption in relation to risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(1):146-59. PMID: 23676423. This study, which was also independently funded, concluded:

compared with those who never consume eggs, those who eat 1 egg per day or more are 42% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. Among diabetic patients, frequent egg consumers (ie, > 1 egg/d) are 69% more likely to have CVD comorbidity…This meta-analysis suggests that egg consumption is not associated with the risk of CVD and cardiac mortality in the general population. However, egg consumption may be associated with an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes among the general population and CVD comorbidity among diabetic patients.

Were these references based largely on studies funded by the egg industry?  If so, PCRM is correct in arguing that the question of egg consumption and blood cholesterol levels merits much closer scrutiny and analysis than it is currently receiving.

What does a study funded by the egg industry look like?  Here are two one from my recent collection:

The effect of a high-egg diet on cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes and Egg (DIABEGG) study—a 3-mo randomized controlled trial, by Nicholas R Fuller, Ian D Caterson, Amanda Sainsbury, Gareth Denyer, Mackenzie Fong, James Gerofi, Katherine Baqleh, Kathryn H Williams, Namson S Lau, and Tania P Markovic.  Am J Clin Nutr 2015; 101:705-713.

• Conclusion: High egg consumption did not have an adverse effect on the lipid profile of people with T2D [type 2 diabetes] in the context of increased MUFA [monounsaturated fatty acid] and PUFA [polyunsaturated fatty acid] consumption. This study suggests that a high-egg diet can be included safely as part of the dietary management of T2D, and it may provide greater satiety.
• Sponsor: Australian Egg Corporation

Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Berger, S., Raman, G., Vishwanathan, R., Jacques, P.F., Johnson, E.J., 2015. Am J Clin Nutr ajcn100305. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.100305.  Am J Clin Nutr August 2015
vol. 102 no. 2 276-294

• Conclusion: Reviewed studies were heterogeneous and lacked the methodologic rigor to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of dietary cholesterol on CVD risk.  [Implication: suggestions that eggs might raise cardiovascular risk are unwarranted]
• Sponsor: Supported by USDA agreement 1950-51000-073 and the American Egg Board, Egg Nutrition Center.  The funders did not have a role in the study selection, quality assessment, data synthesis, or manuscript preparation.

Snacks are trending.  As Food-Navigator-USA’s analysts see it, “there are new opportunities in gluten-free, ethnic breads and gourmet bakery items, while snack makers are tapping into consumer demand for ancient grains and seeds, plant-based proteins, and bean, pea and lentil-based ingredients….Americans are increasingly abandoning three square meals a day for serial snacking.”

• Come fly with me! Inflight snacking with JetBlue: Unless you’re sitting in the front of the cabin, the food and beverage options on most airlines are, well, pretty uninspiring. But what if an airplane could be a place to discover new and exciting foods and brands that you haven’t had before?.. Read
• That’s it enjoys explosive growth as snackers seek simplicity: When Dr Lior Lewensztain first started pitching That’s it fruit bars to retailers, pretty much everyone he talked to wanted in. Three and a half years later he is in tens of thousands of locations nationwide from Starbucks to 7-Eleven, and sales are still growing in the triple-digits. So what’s his secret?.. Read
• As seaweed snacks gain popularity, they present a chance to get in at ground level, expert says: Seaweed snacks are riding a rising tide in the U.S. with sales swelling between $250 million and $500 million in 2014, according to an industry trends expert… Read
• Nourish Snacks co-founder Joy Bauer talks sugar, portion control, and the key pillars of healthy snacking: The ‘healthier’ snacks market is awash with non-GMO, gluten-free, and ‘no artificial’ claims, while corn syrup is out and ‘real’ (cane) sugar, coconut sugar, and agave syrup are in. But are these products really delivering in the nutritional stakes, given that snacks now account for a quarter of energy intakes?.. Read
• Manitoba Harvest sales approaching C$100m in 2015 as hemp food market heats up:OK, so the Declaration of Independence was not, as urban myth would have it, written on hemp (the said document was written on parchment). But 239 years later, this ultra-versatile super seed is finally gaining traction as a food ingredient in the United States, according to the world’s largest hemp foods manufacturer… Read
• Snack spotting at Expo East turns up paleo muffins, veggie treats, on-the-go nut butter & more: With snacking replacing more meals in the US, manufacturers are responding with a variety of fast, on-the-go options that are packed with nutrients, protein, fiber and energy… Display
• Mediterra expands its savory bar portfolio, welcomes competitors to the nascent category: For years the nutrition bar category was mostly limited to sweet flavors, but now that is changing, thanks in part to Mediterra – a pioneer in making savory snack bars. .. Watch now
• Where next for gluten-free, and what’s the real size of the prize?: The #1 gluten-free brand in Europe, Schär entered the US market in 2007 and set up a manufacturing facility in New Jersey in 2012, and is now the #2 player in the US gluten-free bread market behind Udi’s Gluten-Free. FoodNavigator-USA (FNU) caught up with marketing director Roberto Cruz (RC) to talk about growth opportunities, market definitions, and the firm’s new Artisan Baker line… Read
• 20% of snack, granola, energy bars feature non-GMO claims, reveals Label Insight: Data from Label Insight* shows that one in five (21%) snack, energy or granola bars in the US now makes a non-GMO claim of some kind – making it the leading category for non-GMO claims, compared with an average of 4.2% for all the grocery products in its database. .. Read
• Flapjacked meets demand for more protein with easy-to-make pancake and muffin mixes: High protein, easy-to-eat foods are no longer limited to bars and shakes – now they can also be found in familiar baked goods that appeal to carb-loving consumers, thanks to companies like Flapjacked. .. Watch now
• 479 Degrees popcorn gets multi-million dollar cash injection from investors including KIND founder Daniel Lubetzky: San Francisco-based ready to eat popcorn maker 479 Degrees has raised a new round of capital from some high profile investors including KIND founder Daniel Lubetzky and Emil Capital Partners, which has also pumped cash into fast-growing brands including Bare Snacks, Sipp, and Goodbelly… Read
• Which ancient grains are gaining the most traction in the US food & beverage market?: Ancient grains continue to gain traction in the US food retail and foodservice market, with quinoa leading the pack. However, lesser-known grains such as teff, amaranth and freekeh are starting to picking up some steam as well, according to a new report* from Packaged Facts… Read
• nomva brings a fresh twist to burgeoning fruit pouch category with HPP and probiotics: If GoGo SqueeZ and Munk Pack have proved that fruit pouches aren’t just for babies, nomva, a new food brand co-founded by Suja Juice founding member Caroline Beckman, is hoping to take the concept one step further with HPP (high pressure processed), organic fruit & veggie probiotic pouches that sit in the yogurt aisle.  .. Read
• The meteoric rise of barkTHINS snacking chocolate: ‘It took off like a rocketship’: Sometimes the most disruptive food products are less about blue-sky innovation than taking something familiar, adding a new twist, and creating a completely new category, says Ripple Brand Collective founder and CEO Scott Semel, who has seen his latest creation – barkTHINS snacking chocolate – “take off like a rocket ship”… Read
• Karma Baker: Dairy-free, egg-free, gluten-free… and delicious: If you’re going to launch a gourmet organic, vegan and gluten-free bakery business, L.A. is probably the place to do it, acknowledges Karma Baker’s founder Celine Ikeler. But if you plan to stick around, you’ve got to make products that will appeal to a broader customer base, for whom dairy- or gluten-free is an added bonus, not the primary purchase driver. .. Read
• Bakery, snacks & beverage could be next frontier for high-protein products, experts say: As the high-protein trend matures from niche to mainstream, innovative manufacturers are tapping into the still-significant growth opportunity by adding the ingredient to a broader range of platforms, including baked goods, snacks and beverages, according to experts in the segment… Read
• Freedom Foods: Gluten-free is well-established, but free-from (foods free of all the big 8 allergens) is the emerging opportunity: It’s the leader in the Australian ‘free-from’ market (free from all eight major allergens), but can Freedom Foods achieve similar success in the US? Two years into its campaign to crack America, the signs are encouraging, says US CEO Michael Bracka… Read
• Digital web series helps Nestle Toll House reach desirable millennial generation: Digital videos can be an effective marketing tool to help food and beverage brands reach the much-vaunted and hard-to-access millennial generation, but for them to succeed, they must be authentically engaging and tightly targeted, according to digital development firm Reach Agency. .. Read

The World Health Organization has issued a statement of clarification of the significance of its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report on the increased risk for colorectal cancer from eating processed and red meat (see my post on this).

The latest IARC review does not ask people to stop eating processed meats but indicates that reducing consumption of these products can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

Got that?

The New York Times explains the meaning of this increased risk.  To understand it, you need to know the risk of colorectal cancer among people who never eat processed or red meat.

The main problem with the public health messages put out by the W.H.O. is that the agency did a poor job of explaining what its risk-ranking system really means…it’s based only on the strength of the overall research, not on the actual danger of a specific product…Even the most strident anti-meat crusader knows that eating bacon is not as risky as smoking or asbestos exposure. Smoking raises a person’s lifetime risk of developing lung cancer by a staggering 2,500 percent. Meanwhile, two daily strips of bacon, based on the associations identified by the W.H.O., would translate to about a 6 percent lifetime risk for colon cancer, up from the 5 percent risk for people who don’t enjoy bacon or other processed meats.

My interpretation: Can processed and red meats be included in healthful diets?  Yes, of course.  But for many reasons, people and the planet would be healthier if these foods were consumed in smaller portions, less often.