USDA has just issued a revision to its food dollar series—its graphic explanation of how the U.S. food dollar gets spent.

This tells us that 15.8 cents out of every food dollar goes to the producer; the rest goes for marketing.

Oddly, the USDA does not provide an updated illustration of the marketing components from its previous version in 2006:

What this tells us is that 80% of the cost of food is accounted for by marketing.

Don’t farmers deserve more?

Last week, New York Times reporter Roni Rabin wrote how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) solicited funding from alcohol companies to fund—and, distressingly, participate in the design of—a study of the effects of moderate drinking on heart disease risk.

This is not the first time Ms. Rabin has written about this study.  In July, she described the study and its funding.

Since then, she has apparently been busy filing FOIA requests and conducting further interviews.  These reveal that the NIH actively solicited industry funding and input into this trial.

The [NIH] presentations gave the alcohol industry an opportunity to preview the trial design and vet the investigators. Indeed, the scientist leading the meetings was eventually chosen to head the huge clinical trial.

They also made the industry privy to pertinent details, including a list of clinical sites and investigators who were “already on board,” the size and length of the trial, approximate number of participants, and the fact that they could choose any beverage. By design, no form of alcohol — wine, liquor or beer — would be called out as better than another in the trial.

But it gets worse.  Boston University professor Michael Siegel tells his personal story of dealings with NIH’s National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

On January 16, 2015, I was called into the office of the Director of NIAAA and was essentially reprimanded for conducting NIAAA-funded research that was detrimental to the alcohol industry…At the meeting, I was told that I would never again be funded to conduct research on alcohol marketing, regardless of how highly my research proposal was scored by the scientific review panel.

Let me be clear: research ethics require funders to have no involvement in research design, conduct, or interpretation, lest they exert undue influence on the results.

Julia Belluz (Vox) put this study in context.  She describes how

The NIH is now investigating whether the researchers violated federal policy by soliciting donations, and they’re appointing outside experts to review the design of the study. We don’t yet know the full story, and there’s surely more to uncover.

Anheuser Busch InBev, Heineken, Diageo, Pernod Ricard, and Carlsberg helped pay $67.7 million of the $100 million government study, which is currently underway. And even more troubling is that if you were a patient looking to enroll in the trial through the online clinical trials registry, you’d have no way of knowing about the industry’s involvement because that funding is not disclosed there.

Although I do not have much to say about the alcohol industry in my forthcoming book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat, I mention of this study as an example of how other industries skew research and also how pooling industry research funds is insufficient protection against conflicted interests (alcohol companies agreed to contribute 67.7% of the funding).

It’s good that the NIH has decided to investigate this dubious government-industry partnership, which so clearly seems aimed at marketing, not public health.

Last week, the New York Times published an article about how the US was inserting provisions in NAFTA negotiations to restrict the ability of Mexico to put warning labels—similar to those in Chile and other countries—on ultraprocessed “junk” foods.

Urged on by big American food and soft-drink companies, the Trump administration is using the trade talks with Mexico and Canada to try to limit the ability of the pact’s three members — including the United States — to warn consumers about the dangers of junk food, according to confidential documents outlining the American position.

The American stance reflects an intensifying battle among trade officials, the food industry and governments across the hemisphere. The administration’s position could help insulate American manufacturers from pressure to include more explicit labels on their products, both abroad and in the United States. But health officials worry that it would also impede international efforts to contain a growing health crisis.

In response to questions by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Dem-Texas), US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer argues that front-of-package labels are a form of protectionism.

Really?

A more compelling reason is that food companies are worried about the possible spread of front-of-package warning labels like those in Chile, Ecuador, and other countries.

I have a long-standing interest in front-of-package labels and wrote about opposition to the warning-label movement recently in a commentary in the American Journal of Public Health.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) issued a statement:

More countries, and certainly the United States, Canada, and Mexico, should give consumers easy-to-read front-of-package labeling that quickly communicates the information they need to avoid diet-related diseases…This is not an “America First” policy; it is an “Industry First” policy, conducted at the expense of the health of consumers in the U.S. and abroad.

Julia Belluz (Vox) describes the effects of a provision like this on Canada’s front-of-package labeling proposals.

Mexico’s outstanding food advocacy coalition, the Nutritional Health Alliance, argues that this pro-industry effort to block warning labels poses a serious threat to consumer rights and public health.

It held a press conference last week on this issue and has produced background documents (in Spanish, but it’s always fun to try Google Translate):

• Descarga anexo de etiquetados de advertencia aquí (examples of FOP labeling from the Americas region)
• Descarga nota jurídica en torno a la homologación de etiquetados EU-México aquí (legal commentary on how such treaties violate health and consumer rights and are illegal in Mexico)
• Descarga comunicado de prensa respectivo aquí (press release)

This comes from one of those daily food-industry newsletters I subscribe to, in this case NutraIngredients.com.  It occasionally focuses on regions and I thought this collection of articles was of interest.  Do Latin Americans need dietary supplements?  Just asking.

Welcome to NutraIngredients’ first quarterly supplement focusing on the Latin American dietary supplements and functional food markets. In this edition, we look at the changing regulatory landscapes across the region, including a deep dive into how Brazil is creating a distinct category for supplements. We’ll also look at a supplement start-up and opportunities for omega-3s in LATAM.

• More education will help realize huge potential for omega-3s in Latin America: Consumers in Latin America understand the general benefits of omega-3s. But there is a need for more education to help capture the huge potential for the ingredients in this region where the market is far from saturated… Read
• LATAM’s regulatory landscape: From Argentina to Uruguay: The regulations around dietary supplements in Latin America are a patchwork of different approaches, but regulatory bodies and regional associations are pushing for change and perhaps even some harmonization… Read
• Florida start-up CareMundi brings US supplements to Brazilian buyers: In the dietary supplement world, Brazil is notorious as being a tough market to get into. But there is demand for US-made products in the country, and one-year old start-up CareMundi, an online sales platform, is providing a bridge for US supplement makers into Latin America’s largest consumer market… Read
• Brazilian regs to be altered to finally create distinct category for supplementsNew regulations set to take effect in Brazil will significantly improve market access for dietary ingredients and finished dietary supplements, an expert says… Read  The possibility of incorporating the health benefits of probiotics into fortified fruit snacks could be a reality thanks to researchers in Brazil… Read
• Brazilian regulatory overhaul will benefit omega-3s, consultant saysThe outlook for omega-3s in Latin America is bright, according to a consultant experienced in the region. In particular, there is regulatory acceptance for these ingredients across the continent… Watch now

The Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee’s 2018 Scientific Report promotes physical activity as a “best buy” for public health.

• Physically active individuals sleep better, feel better, and function better.
• Some benefits happen immediately.
• Physical activity reduces the risk of a large number of diseases and conditions.
• The benefits of physical activity can be achieved in a variety of ways.

The report recommends 50 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity, but

• Any is better than none
• More is better than less
• Any amount at any level or duration counts.

The good news is that huge benefits come with just being somewhat active.

The report recommends 50 to 300 minutes of at least moderate activity a week, and this can be done in increments.

A brisk walk around the office, anyone?

The British newsletter, FoodManufacture.co.uk, also does special editions, collections of articles on specific topics, this one on food safety (you too can subscribe to this, here).

This is an easy way to keep up with current events related to food products.

Special Edition: Food Safety Newsletter

Welcome to the latest Food Safety Newsletter from the Food Manufacture Group. This month’s round-up leads with positive talks between Food Standards Scotland and the country’s meat industry following several cases of enforcement action. The newsletter also looks at the Food Standards Agency’s attempts to overhaul regulation, an Ikea confectionery recall and mutant rats.

• Scottish meat industry in ‘constructive’ talks with enforcement agency: A meeting between representatives of the Scottish meat industry and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) has been hailed as “constructive” by parties from both sides… Read
• Research body lays out food safety challenges: Anti-microbial resistance and the role of gut microbes in diet have been identified as two of the leading challenges faced by the food industry following a consultation by Campden BRI… Read
• FSA claims majority of meat plants are compliant: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has said that the majority of meat plants have had no major breaches of food and hygiene standards… Read
• Food standards boss pledges to overhaul regulation: Despite Brexit, Food Standards Agency boss Heather Hancock is determined to press on with an overhaul of food safety regulation… Read
• Ikea recalls candy due to mice infestation: Ikea, the furniture retailer, is recalling its Godis Paskkyckling marshmallow candy due to the discovery of a possible mice infestation at a production unit… Read
• FSA praises ‘strong intelligence’ that led to meat recall action: The recent unannounced inspections of meat businesses conducted by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) came from “welcome intelligence” received following the Russell Hume recall situation… Read
• Food manufacturers warned over poison-resistant rats: Food manufacturers face a new generation of mutant rats resistant to conventional poison, according to the British Pest Control Association (BPCA)… Read
• More investment needed in food safety research: More public investment is needed in food safety research, all 28 EU Member States, along with Iceland and Norway, have agreed… Read

Canada’s food guide has been around since 2007.

Bill Jeffery, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Health Science and Law (which publishes the Food for Life Report) has produced an annotated version of the food guide with proposals for fixing its major problems.

Critics viewed it as far too industry-friendly.

Here’s a graphic summary of the proposed revisions.

This is a great opportunity for Canada to produce a food guide that really does promote health.

Fingers crossed.

The daily newsletter, DairyReporter.com, sends this intriguing story: “Pizza Hut adds 25% more cheese to pan pizzas as part of dairy checkoff program.”

More than 6,000 Pizza Hut locations in the US are adding 25% more cheese to its pan pizzas, requiring an additional 150m lbs of milk annually to meet the change, Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) said.

You read that right: 150 million additional pounds of milk to make cheese for pizza.

Dairy Management Inc. runs the National Dairy Promotion & Research Board, a USDA-sponsored “checkoff” program.  Its purpose is to “build demand for dairy products.”

It does this by convincing fast food chains to add more dairy items to their menus.

As DairyReporter explains,

Pizza Hut’s increased milk demand could help chip away at an oversupply of milk causing a downward pressure on milk prices in the US. The USDA estimated that the US dairy industry will produce 21.8bn lbs of milk in 2018, while slightly lower than 2017 production, the supply still outweighs market demand causing milk prices to continue to drop.

I like cheese as much as anyone, but more cheese means more calories, if nothing else.

One ounce of mozzarella cheese provides 85 calories.  Two ounces = 170 calories, etc.

Enough said.

Addition: Thanks to Gerri French for telling me about Michael Moss’s video on this topic, based on his book Salt, Sugar, Fat.