Remember those USDA food boxes I complained about so often last year?

Now we have a congressional staff report providing the gory (an understatement) details.

Recall that the ostensible purpose of this program was to collect food from struggling farmers, pack the boxes, and deliver them to food banks for distribution to hungry people.

I thought this was way too cumbersome to work.  Its real purpose had to be to undermine SNAP.

This reports provides the horrendous details: huge expenditures, high profits, failure to deliver as promised.

One distributor was paid $31.5 million; it reported reported profits of 10% to 25%.

Another, paid $16.5 million, charged the government a 50% markup.

Some of the report’s conclusions (others dealt with President Trump’s use of the boxes for campaign purposes).

• USDA Failed to Ensure that Box Contents Met the Needs of Food Insecure Americans.
• Documentation Requirements Were Fundamentally Insufficient, Creating Unnecessary Risks of Fraud.
• The Program Was Created Without Mechanisms for USDA to Confirm that Box Distributions Targeted People in Need.
• The Food Box Program’s Structure Incentivized Contractors to Waste Food and Shift Costs to Nonprofits.
• USDA Did Not Effectively Review Deliveries and Contractor Performance.

As for helping farmers, some big ones made out well, small ones not so much.  The report offers these gems:

The idea for the Food Box program appears to have originated with a large food industry group. Emails show that the National Chicken Council proposed the idea for “a special purchase of chicken in light of COVID-19,” and subsequent distribution of such chicken products to “worthy recipients,” to Secretary Perdue’s office on April 6, 2020 (p. 30).

contractors in the Food Box Program sometimes [were] paid well above market prices, with farmers and producers sometimes receiving from CRE8AD8 up to ten times the payments they would normally get from grocery stores (p. 36)

USDA apparently did not collect evidence that would allow it to confirm (1) the quantity and specific types of foods ultimately purchased for inclusion in the dairy, protein, or produce food boxes, (2) the amount actually paid by taxpayers to farmers and producers (p. 36).

The report has many recommendations for preventing such problems but why bother.

It would be much cheaper and less wasteful to raise SNAP benefits.

On October 13, the FDA finally got around to finalizing its guidance for the food industry for voluntary, short-term (2.5 year) sodium reduction targets for lots of processed, packaged and prepared foods.

In a statement, the FDA says its new guidance

provides voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, restaurants, and food service operators for approximately 160 categories of processed, packaged and prepared foods. The targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 milligrams (mg) to 3,000 mg per day—about a 12% reduction—over the next 2.5 years.

Reducing sodium has been on the FDA agenda for years.  It issued draft guidance in 2016.  On this, it received about 200 comments.  

The FDA’s idea for this first target is to reduce average daily sodium intake by about 12%—from approximately 3,400 milligrams (mg) to 3,000 mg per day—in 2.5 years.

This is still higher than the recommended 2300 mg.  Why so limited?

Politics, of course.

The FDA believes

• These targets are feasible.
• Gradual reduction will accustom people to lower sodium intake.
• Food companies might be willing to do this.

A quick review of the basics:

• Salt is 40% sodium (2300 mg sodium means about 6 grams of salt or 1.5 teaspoons).
• High salt diets are strongly associated with high blood pressure and stroke.
• We require less than 500 mg sodium a day; average diets are greatly in excess.
• Most salt in the diet comes from pre-prepared foods (70%); 20% is added at the table; 10% is innate in foods.
• The taste for high-salt is acquired; the more salt you eat, the more salt it takes to make foods taste right.
• For people used to high-salt diets, low-salt makes food taste bland.  It takes about three weeks to get used to low-salt.
• Once accustomed to low-salt, typical levels of salt make food taste too salty.

Thus, the FDA’s strategy is to gradually accustom people to lower salt intake.

The guidance is voluntary: “This voluntary, iterative approach is similar to approaches successfully implemented in other countries.”

By other countries, the FDA must mean Great Britain.  The UK did a big voluntary salt reduction campaign some years ago and got enough buy in from food companies to see a real difference in salt intake and blood pressure.

When the government changed and laid off the pressure, companies put back most of the salt (not all though). That history is here.

So this could work if food companies cooperate.  Presumably, the FDA will assess the results of this voluntary effort in 2.5 years.

The stick?  The implied threat of mandatory reductions if the voluntary ones don’t work.

2.5 years is a long time to wait for voluntary compliance.

My view

• These should have been mandatory to begin with.
• The target levels should be lower.
• The time scale should be faster.

Other than that, the FDA’s plan could be a useful first step.  We shall see.

Statements

• From FDA officials
• The American Heart Association  
• Center for Science in the Public Interest

Documents

• The FDA constituent update on sodium is available here.
• An FDA web page, “Sodium Reduction,” is available here.
• The FDA guidance for industry is available here.
• Dietary Guidelines for Americans  fact sheet on sodium
• A paper in JAMA from FDA officials on reducing sodium in the US

This one is so unusual that it demands attention.

The study: Thirty Days of Montmorency Tart Cherry Supplementation Has No Effect on Gut Microbiome Composition, Inflammation, or Glycemic Control in Healthy Adults.  Angela R. Hillman1* and Bryna C. R. Chrismas  Front. Nutr., 16 September 2021

Hypothesis: Polyphenols in Montmorency Tart Cherry products would influence the gut microbiome composition,which would modulate changes in inflammatory markers and glucose regulation.

Methods: Four groups of subjects consumed either concentrate or freeze-dried capsules or their corresponding placebos for 30 days.

Results: Only one of several inflammatory markers was reduced.  There were no changes in insulin, glycated albumin, or composition of bacterial phyla, families, or subfamilies for the duration of this study nor was there a change in species richness.

Conclusion: These data suggest that 30 days of MTC supplementation does not modulate the gut microbiome, inflammation, or improve glycemic control in a healthy, diverse group of adults.

Funding: This study was funded by a grant from The Cherry Marketing Institute.

Comment: I have previously posted several studies paid for by cherry trade associations; these yielded results demonstrating truly remrkable health benefits of cherry consumption (see this one on prevention of dementia, for example).

But this study found cherry extracts to do nothing special.

Applause to these authors!

All fruits have antioxidants of one kind or another.  Eating a variety of delicious fruits should be a pleasure, not a medical duty.

It’s past the cherry season in the Northeast where I live, but if you can get them, enjoy!

Agriculture and climate change interact in two ways: (a) agriculture contributes to climate change, and  (b) climate change affects agriculture.

In May, USDA published its plan to address (a): “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy: 90-Day Progress Report.”

Secretary Vilsack explains:

We will look across climate science and research, forest health, outreach and education, existing programs, and new and emerging markets to advance climate-smart agriculture and forestry..Equity and justice will play a guiding role in our work…We will also prioritize actions that provide tangible, near-term benefts for low-income communities and communities of color.   I am confdent that in partnership with our country’s agriculture and forestry stakeholders, we can develop a strategy that is a win-win for our producers in building climate resilience, mitigating emissions, and conserving our natural resources.

Now the USDA has just issued its plan to address (b), formitigating the effects of climate change on agriculture.

USDA Secretary Vilsack explains:

As the “People’s Department,” USDA is preparing to help communities across the United States, both rural and urban, plan for and build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

People’s Department?  If only.

USDA’s strategy to help farmers deal with climate change will involve:

• Investing in soil and forest health
• Improving communication and accessibility on climate-smart strategies
• Making climate data more broadly available
• Increasing research
• Leveraging the USDA Climate Hubs, USDA’s regional networks for helping farmers adapt to climate change

These reports are densely written and require much reading between the lines to figure out what USDA is really going to do and whether its actions have any hope of succeeding.

Let’s hope they do.

I haven’t said much about unusual bottled waters since 2018 when I wrote about bottled ocean water.

2018 was also when I went on The Daily Show to be interviewed by Desi Lydic as the straitperson for her deep dive into “raw water” (surely, the funniest thing I’ve ever done).

Well, you can’t make up these things.

• Karma Water launches CBD Water:  Karma Water – a US brand which Constellation Brands has a minority stake in – has launched Karma CBD Water: the first such beverage in its wellness and probiotic waters beverage portfolio…. Read more
• Shine Water with Vitamin D: That this is about marketing more than health is evident from at least one review: “The brand messaging is where things go a little off track, slamming you with callouts and copy, trying to establish credibility for the drink’s functionality. These include a large green vitamin D callout, a Vitamin D Council “approved” logo, a “developed by physicians” logo, two mentions of their charitable intentions (5 percent of profits — a problem in that most startup beverage companies have zero or minimal profits for a while).
• Psychedelic Water: A friend who prefers to remain anonymous forwarded an e-mail from this company: “We would love to arrange an interview with you and the team of disruptors behind the launch of the first legal psychedelic, mild mood-boosting, hangover-free fun…Psychedelics have been touted in the media lately for the extreme benefits they have on mental health, depression, happiness, mood-stabilizing, and overall general well-being. Psychedelic Water works because it is the world’s first legal psychedelic blend of kava root, damiana leaf, and green tea A leaf extract for an experience like no other.

My only comment:  Really, there are better ways to get CBD, vitamin D, or even high if that’s what you are looking for.  Me?  I’m sticking to plain, ordinary drinking water, sometimes fizzed up a bit.

I am indebted to Bill Tonelli who took this photo on October 10 in Viterbo, Italy, about an hour outside of Rome.

The shop, he reports, sells American snacks—candy, chips, soda—with no pretense of worry about health or sustainability.

He sent me to the store’s website:

Benvenuti nel regno degli snack americani (Welcome to the kingdom of American snacks)

Tantissimi snack e bevande made in USA come Hershey’s, Reese’s, Monster Energy, Doritos, Cheetos, Dr. Pepper e tantissimi altri ti aspettano ! (And many others are waiting for you!)

As I mentioned yesterday, the American Beverage Association represents the interests of soft drink companies that use sugars and artificial sweeteners in their products.  Its goal: to make you think both are just fine for your health.

Today, let’s take a look at a related, but different trade association, this one The Sugar Association.  Its goal: to make you not worry about sugars and to think that they are better for you than artificial sweeteners.

Here, for example, is a press release from this Association from this past summer: New Research Shows Large Majority of Consumers Understand Real Sugar Comes from Plants & That it Can Be Part of a Healthy Diet; Data reveals significant shift in perceptions of sugar and artificial sweeteners.

And here is its infographic showing data on public suspicions of artificial sweeteners.

Now, we have a new campaign from The Sugar Association: The Campaign for Sweetener Transparency.

More than 10,000 consumers across the United States have joined the fight for sweeping reform of the government’s labeling regulations covering the use of alternative sweeteners in packaged food by signing an online petition urging the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to require food companies to place clear, complete and accurate information on food labels…it’s virtually impossible for shoppers to know what alternative sweeteners are in which packaged foods because the FDA only requires food companies to list the chemical names of sugar substitutes on food ingredient labels. So, consumers only see names like Xylitol, Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysates, Saccharin, Acesulfame Potassium, Neotame, Isomalt and Lactitol on ingredients lists without even knowing what they are and why they are used.

The Sugar Association wants artificial sweeteners clearly labeled so customers will switch to products that have sugars instead.

• Products containing artificial sweeteners fall in the category of ultra-processed—foods that should be avoided or eaten in small amounts.
• Products containing added sugars also should be avoided or eaten in small amounts.

That’s why this campaign is about market share, not health.

For a basic guide to what to do about sugars, see this resource guide from Hunter’s Food Policy Center.

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.