Search results: food policy action

I am indebted to Margarita Raycheva, who writes for the highly informative newsletter, IEG Policy Agribusiness, for her recent article, which certainly got my attention: “Coca-Cola asks DGAC to develop detailed dietary recommendations for beverages” (this is probably behind a paywall).

Her article is about comments filed by Coca-Cola to the DGAC, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.  She did not provide a link to those comments, so I had to search for them.  This involved finding the DGAC comments page, searching for Coca-Cola, locating the company’s letter, and opening the pdf attachment.

The 12-page document reads like a highly sophisticated advertisement for Coca-Cola’s astounding number of beverage options, many of them low in sugar or sugar-free.

Over the last few years, Coca-Cola has been transforming to become a total beverage company that meets Americans’ fast-changing preferences across a wide array of beverage categories. We support the World Health Organization’s recommendation that people should limit added sugar to no more than 10% of their total daily calorie consumption1 and are rethinking existing recipes, package sizes and offerings to ensure we are helping consumers manage their daily intake of added sugar and other nutrients from our portfolio.  Today, we offer more than 800 drinks in the U.S. alone, ranging from soft drinks to juices, teas, coffee, dairy, sports drinks, water and more – more than 250 of which are low- or zero-sugar options. More than 40% of our sparkling beverage brands in the U.S. are now available in package sizes that are smaller than 8.5 ounces. We are increasing marketing support for low-sugar, no-sugar and unsweetened products…; we are introducing less sweet versions of classic soft drinks…; and we are accelerating our expansion into new beverage categories through the acquisition of brands….We are taking these actions because we recognize the critical role that we – and the entire industry – can play in advancing nutritional goals by using our scale for good.

Why do this?

• About 15% of energy comes from beverages
• Beverages, such as sweetened soft drinks, coffee and tea contribute more than 40% of daily added sugar intake
• Beverages, mainly milk and 100% juice, contribute over 40% of vitamin C and D intake and more than 20% intake of carbohydrates, calcium, potassium and magnesium
• Fruit intake (0.9 cup/day) is half of recommended levels (2 cups/day); 100% fruit juice contributes up to 24% of fruit intake in children, but decreases after adolescence
• Coffee and tea contribute up to 12% of potassium intake in adults
• Waters contribute up to 10% of calcium intake in adults

In other words, drink more (of our) beverages!

Coca-Cola’s proposals for how beverages can enhance diets:

• Hydration
• Nutrition and health
• Enjoyment
• Performance

What should the DGAC do?

By creating a framework that includes guidance for all types of beverages, the DGA can help drive Americans towards healthier versions of drinks they are typically consuming. Recommending limited
consumption or small shifts towards healthier beverages is more effective than simply discouraging the consumption of entire beverage categories.

The company’s proposals for how the DGAC can help it sell more beverages include sample statements like these examples [with my translations]:

• Water should be the primary beverage choice [recommend our bottled water]
• Milk plays an important role in development and health, and contributes essential nutrients to healthy eating patterns, including protein, calcium, vitamin D and potassium [recommend our milk drinks]
• When fortified, plant-based beverages may provide nutrients and support consumer choice, but generally should not be considered a replacement for dairy [please don’t recommend almond, soy, or oat milks–we don’t make any of those drinks]
• Juice contributes to the public’s consumption of essential nutrients, phytonutrient and fruit/vegetable intake [recommend our juice drinks]
• Coffee and tea are sources of health-promoting phytonutrients and are associated with reduced risk of rtain non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [recommend them; we sell those too]
• Replace sugar-sweetened beverages >40 kcal that do not contribute significantly to nutrition needs with these beverages to reduce calorie and sugar consumption [if you must recommend avoing sugary beverages, at least recommend replacement with everything else we sell]
• Sports drinks can be beneficial for individuals who engage in prolonged vigorous physical activity, or those sweating for prolonged hours due to warm to hot temperatures [OK, they have sugar, but recommend them anyway]

I can’t wait to see what the DGAC does with this impressively written document.

Not that it matters, really.  Recall: The DGAC submits the research report, but the agencies—USDA takes the lead this time—write the actual guidelines.

David Michaels.  The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.  Oxford University Press, 2019.  

Even though this book is not strictly about food politics, it has enough about the sugar and alcohol industries to qualify.  I did a blurb for it.

Triumph of Doubt is an industry-by-industry account of how corporations manipulate science and scientists to promote profits, not public health.  Nothing less than democracy is at stake here, and we all should be responding right away to David Michaels’ call for action.

Michaels, a former OSHA official, has written an insider’s look at a wide range of industries that follow the tobacco industry’s playbook for casting doubt on inconvenient science.  The range is impressive: football, diesel fuel, opioids, silica dust, Volkswagen cars, climate denial, food packaging chemicals, alcohol, sugar, and Republican ideology

He’s got some ideas about what to do—keep conflicted scientists out of policy making, for example—but in this political environment?

That leaves it up to us folks to take to the streets.  If only.

The World Resources Institute has issued its final report on Creating a Sustainable Food Future.

The report addresses the central dilemma of our time: how to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050 without destroying the planet in the process.

The report takes a deep dive into potential solutions:

• Reduce demand
• Increase production
• Protect national ecosystems
• Increase fish supply
• Reduce greenhouse gases produced by agriculture
• Policy options

This report deals with these issues, none of them simple, in more than 550 pages.  It offers no simple solutions.  Dealing with this dilemma will take a great many actions by a great many people, governments, and industry.  The report sets the agenda.  Now it’s our turn.

The furor over the “don’t-worry-about-meat” papers published earlier this week (see my post) did not have much to say about the lead author’s previous association with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), disclosed in a “you don’t need to worry about sugar” review from the same journal in 2016: “This project was funded by the Technical Committee on Dietary Carbohydrates of ILSI North America.”  The meat papers did not mention the previous connection to ILSI, even though it occurred within the past three years.  They should have.

ILSI is a classic food-industry front group, one that tries to stay under the radar but is not succeeding very well lately.

The New York Times titled its recent ILSI investigation: A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World.

This reminded me of what I wrote about ILSI in my book Unsavory Truth (2018).  When I was working on the last chapters of the book, I realized that something about ILSI’s role turned up in practically every chapter.  Here, I refer to a study funded by ILSI.

The front-group funder was the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an organization that turns up often in this book. ILSI describes itself as an independent scientific think tank, but it was created and is largely funded by the food industry. This makes it, by definition, a front group.

But you might not realize this from reading the study authors’ disclosure statement, which describes ILSI as “a public, nonprofit scientific foundation that provides . . . a neutral forum for government, academic, and industry scientists to discuss and resolve scientific issues of common concern for the well-being of the general public” (1).

ILSI keeps a relatively low public profile but seems never to miss an opportunity to defend the interests of its four hundred or so corporate sponsors. Its 2016 annual report takes four pages and fifteen columns to list industry supporters of its national and international branches; these contribute two-thirds of this group’s nearly $18 million in annual revenues (the rest comes from government or private grants or contributions). ILSI’s board of trustees is about half industry and half academia, all unpaid volunteers.

Critics describe ILSI as a “two-level” organization. On the surface, it engages in legitimate scientific activities. But deep down, it provides funders with “global lobbying services . . . structured in a way which ensures that the funding corporations have majority membership in all its major decision-making committees.” (2).

(1) Besley JC, McCright AM, Zahry NR, et al.  Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175643.  McComas KA.  Session 5: Nutrition communication. The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists.  Proc Nutr Soc. 2008;67(4):428-36.

(2) Miller D, Harkins C. Corporate strategy and corporate capture: food and alcohol industry and lobbying and public health. Crit Soc Policy. 2010;30:564-89.

I have written about ILSI in previous blog posts:

• Coca-Cola’s political influence in China: documented evidence
• Mars Inc says goodbye to ILSI, hello to science policy
• Industry-funded study says advice to eat less sugar is based on bad science (surprise) 

Others have also written about this organization:

• Are industry-funded charities promoting “advocacy-led studies” or “evidence-based science”?: A case study of the International Life Sciences Institute
• US Right to Know’s facts on ILSI

It’s about time ILSI’s practices are being exposed.

The press release from the Annals of Internal Medicine arrived last week under embargo, sent to me by several reporters: “New guidelines: No need to reduce red or processed meat consumption for good health.”

The press announcement was accompanied by 5 review papers, a sixth with this recommendation, and an editorial.  These are posted on the website of their publisher, the American College of Physicians, implying this organization’s endorsement of this guideline.

Collectively, these papers challenge dietary advice to eat less processed meat and red meat on the grounds of inadequate science.

These papers argue:

• Eliminating processed and red meat from the diet may reduce disease risks but the effects are small and evidence for them is of low quality and low certainty.
• Omnivores are unwilling to eat less meat.
• If you continue to think eating meat is bad for you in the face of this evidence, you are a victim of the “the less you know, the more you hold to your beliefs” syndrome.
• You can ignore dietary guidelines (regardless of source) and continuing eating meat as you always have.

This is a good example of what I call nutritional nihilism, an approach that insists that because observational studies are based on self-reported information and necessarily flawed, their conclusions are unscientific and should be discounted.  Therefore, because we can’t do more rigorous studies, we should not advise the public about diets best for health or the environment.

I have several concerns about all this:

• Yes, the effects are small but that is true of nutrition studies in general.  The small effects show benefits from eating less meat.  The authors could easily have interpreted their work as suggesting that eating less meat might be useful.  This is an example of interpretation bias.
• The authors took a strictly science-based approach to a problem strongly affected by social, economic, and political factors and values.
• The studies look at previous studies that compared people who eat meat to those who eat less. The authors excluded studies of vegetarians compared to meat-eaters.
• They look at meat outside its context of calories.
• The authors did not look at the totality of the evidence; they excluded laboratory and animal studies that can be more closely controlled.
• They excluded studies of environmental impact, which has a significant bearing on human dietary practices (meat production adds more greenhouse gases than vegetable production).
• The conclusions fall into the category of “everything you thought you knew about nutrition is wrong.”  This rarely happens.  Science usually works incrementally, not in one enormous reversal like this.

Do the authors really believe that all those other committees and commissions urging less meat were wrong and continue to be wrong?   Their strictly science-based approach seems unrealistic.

The papers come across to me as a concerted attack on dietary guidelines (national and international), on nutrition science in general, and on nutritional epidemiology in particular.

The meat industry and its supporters will love them.

Attacks on the quality of nutrition research have been coming from many sources lately: the food industry, of course, but also statisticians (John Ioannidis at Stanford is making a career of this), and some scientists (usually with ties to food companies).  The criticisms themselves are not new.

What is new is the vehemence and level of effort to discredit observational studies, particularly those based on self-reports of dietary intake.  Yes, nutritional epidemiology has flaws, but the methods have been useful in many instances, as argued convincingly by two of its leading practitioners.

In looking at nutrition research, I think it is essential to evaluate the totality of information available: laboratory, animal, human epidemiology and clinical studies—and to do this in the context of what people actually eat and the number of calories they consume, as well as adding in a hefty dose of common sense.

Common sense is what’s missing in these studies.  Do the authors really believe that:

• Meat eaters are healthier than vegetarians?
• Eating more meat is better for health?
• Meat eaters are less obese and have less heart disease and cancer than those who eat less?

If not, the conclusions make no sense.

Most of the authors report no financial ties to the food industry.  I would love to know the back story about why they chose to do these studies and to interpret them in this way.

Reactions (I will be adding to this list as they come in)

• The Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department issued a statement
• The True Health Initiative (THI) issued a press release outlining its concerns (the link is here)
• THI council members sent a letter to the journal editor stating objections (the link)
• THI collected quotes from members of its council and others (including mine)
• THI also produced graphics.  Here is one example.

• David Katz weighs in
• New York Times: 5 things you should know
• New York Times coverage: “Eat less meat, scientists said.  Now some believe that was bad advice.”
• From Dean Ornish
• Consumer Reports (I’m quoted)
• From the World Cancer Research Fund
• Vox’s crystal clear explanation
• NPR’s The Salt’s excellent analysis
• Aaron Carroll’s follow-up to his editorial

I included a chapter on sugar and dental disease in my 2015 book, Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), because billions of people have decayed teeth and other dental problems that could have been kept intact by dental hygiene, fluoride treatment, or—consuming less sugar or sugary drinks.

But:

• Dental disease has a long history of being overlooked as a public health problem.
• Sugar has a long history of being ignored as a cause of dental disease.

This may now be changing.

The Lancet has a new series on oral health:

It’s great that The Lancet has finally taken this on.

Here’s The Guardian’s Account.  There should be a lot more press coverage.  Dental conditions affect billions of people throughout the world.

You may think, as I do, that everyone would be better off eating less sugar, but that’s not how The Sugar Association sees it.  This trade association for sugar producers funds research to demonstrate that eating sugar is a good thing and not harmful.

Here’s what The Sugar Association says:

The Sugar Association is committed to transparent engagement with researchers, external partners and consumers to address knowledge gaps and support independent, peer-reviewed science. Recent literature suggests this framework, rooted in transparency and communication and reflected in our Operating Principles, leads to increased public confidence in industry-funded research,* a goal the organization is working to achieve.

The asterisk refers to Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research, a consensus report written by, among others, representatives of the International Life Sciences Institute, a well known front group for the food industry, and other organizations with ties to food companies.

The Sugar Association lists some of its recent publications [you can’t make this stuff up]:

• Bakke AJ, Stubbs CA, McDowell EH, Moding KJ, Johnson SL, Hayes JE. Mary Poppins was right: Adding small amounts of sugar or salt reduces the bitterness of vegetables. Appetite. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.03.015. [Mary Poppins was talking about medicine, not vegetables: “Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, In a most delightful way.”]
• Bailey RL, Fulgoni VL, Cowan AE, Gaine PC. Sources of Added Sugars in Young Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Low and High Intakes of Added Sugars. Nutrients. 2018;10(1):102.

Nutrition Today Supplement: Sweet Taste Perception and Feeding Toddlers. March/April 2017 – Volume 52 [The Sugar Association funded the conference that resulted in this supplement, which it also funded].

• Dwyer JT. Good Nutrition in Toddlers. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S1-S2.5.
• Bailey RL, Barr SI. Introduction: Sweet Taste Perception and Feeding Toddlers. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S3-S5.
• Achterberg C. A Perspective: Toddler Feeding, Science, and Nutrition Policy. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S6-S13.
• Kleinman RE, Greer F, Cowart BJ, et al. Roundtable Proceedings: The Role of Innate Sweet Taste Perception in Supporting a Nutrient-Dense Diet for Toddlers, 12 to 24 Months Old. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S14-S24. [Kleinman is co-chair of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee]
• Murray RD. Influences on the Initial Dietary Pattern Among Children From Birth to 24 Months. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S25-S29.Johnson SL, Hayes JE. Developmental Readiness, Caregiver and Child Feeding Behaviors, and Sensory Science as a Framework for Feeding Young Children. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S30-S40.
• Hayes JE, Johnson SL. Sensory Aspects of Bitter and Sweet Tastes During Early Childhood.Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S41-S51.
• Moshfegh AJ, Rhodes DG, Goldman JD, Clemens JC. Characterizing the Dietary Landscape of Children, 12 to 35 Months Old. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S52-S59.
• Welsh JA, Figueroa J. Intake of Added Sugars During the Early Toddler Period. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S60-68.
• Palmer CA. Oral and Dental Health Considerations in Feeding Toddlers. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S69-S75.

NutraIngredients.com, one of those informative industry newsletters I subscribe to, has a collection of articles on CBD (cannabidiol, the component of hemp and marijuana that does not make you high but may have some health benefits).

Manufacturers are rushing to produce CBD edibles and supplements, despite concerns about their legal status, as you can see here.

• CBD startup’s mission to become ‘the Unilever of the Cannabis industry’: The founders of a British CBD tea startup are on a mission to become ‘the Unilever of the cannabis Industry’ with truly natural and organic innovations to appeal to the ethos of cannabis consumers… Read
• Germany identified as future pacesetter in buoyant European CBD market: The European cannabidol (CBD) market is set to blossom over the next four years, according to a market intelligence firm, who also predict that Germany’s growth will outpace that of other EU countries… Read
• CBD trade group mounts legal action to challenge possible FSA reclassification: A trade association for the UK’s cannabis industry announces its intentions to sue the country’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) over moves to classify cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products as a ‘novel food.’.. Read
• Hemp world takes steps toward legitimacy, but still has need for growth: The hemp and CBD industry seems to be taking a step toward ‘adulthood,’ based on a visit to a recent expo… Read
• Flood of synthetic cannabinoids threatens to undermine CBD market, experts say: The hemp/CBD industry is being threatened by so-called synthetic cannabinoids that are flooding the market, attendees at a recent botanicals conference were told… Read
• CBD regulation: Global clampdown or treading a careful path to acceptance?  The interest in cannabidiol (CBD) use in food supplements, foods, and even as an ingredient in cosmetics has gained much momentum in the past five years, but what is the regulatory situation around the world?.. Read
• ‘Think of yeast as a factory…’ Microbial fermentation can deliver CBD with consistent purity at a lower cost, says Demetrix: While some natural products brands are only interested in CBD from hemp or marijuana plants, the market for cannabinoids produced via microbial fermentation is potentially huge, as the pesticide-free process delivers higher yields and consistent purity at a “substantially lower cost,” claims one company on a mission to lead this emerging field… Read
• Updated EC ruling for CBD classes supplement ingredient as Novel Food: The European Commission (EC) has reclassified cannabidiol (CBD) as a Novel Food in a change that may mean CBD and hemp-derived food supplements cannot be legally sold within Europe… Read
• Indecision reigns over current CBD Novel Food status as industry groups clash with authorities: Evidence presented at the Novel Food Commission meeting this week has triggered a rethink for authorities over the decision to classify Cannabidiol (CBD) as a novel food (NF)… Read
• CBD frustration: Aussie supplement firms thwarted by rules while pharma advances march on: Pharmaceutical firms are making strides in the Australia’s medical cannabis space, but supplement and nutraceutical firms will have to wait a long time before they can do the same, says an industry expert… Read

And from this and other sources

• Will CBD-infused snacks help Mondelēz regain traction in its developed markets?  The multinational snack maker is in the early stages of assessing how CBD could fit into its future product portfolio, according to CEO Dirk Van Put… Read
• Supplements and beyond: CBD industry on cusp of cannabis revolution.  WATCH.
• CBD entering food and drink at an “astounding pace,” report says.
• Supplements and beyond: CBD industry on cusp of cannabis revolution – WATCH: The European Commission’s decision to classify cannabidiol (CBD)-containing products as a ‘novel food,’ continues to irk those in the sector as the nutrition industry gather once more for Vitafoods… Watch now
• Mexico’s cannabis future? Right now it’s a ‘standby situation’, says expert: The future of cannabis in foods and supplements remains unclear for Mexico following the revocation of guidelines without any next-step plan, but a new regulatory instrument should come soon, says the MD of DPE International Consulting… Read
• Could CBD supplementation help curb heroin cravings?  Cannabidiol (CBD) might have a role in helping to break the cycle of heroin addiction, according to research from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York… Read
• FDA’s Cannabis hearing to draw more than 140 speakers.
• ‘The landscape for cannabis in food’  An educational session at this year’s Sweets & Snacks Expo on the interest in cannabis-derived products came with a warning from the organizers that exhibitors were not allowed to sell any such products, which shows how controversial a trend it is. A panel of experts attempted to pick their way through the legal minefield… Read