Search results: journal nature

When I saw this ad in last Thursday’s New York Times, I immediately clipped it out.

What is this?

It is an ad for a dietary supplement, Telos95, with a classic structure/function claim (a type invented for dietary supplements of less-than-established efficacy): “telomere & DNA chromosome health support—-telomere lengthening and lowering cellular age in just 6 months.”

Telos95 is the only plant-based dietary supplement that aids in the chromosome stability during the process of cell replication.  It’s vital that normal cell replicative senescence takes place, so the cells divide in a healthy state and telomeres remain at the same length or lengthen, which biologically ensures a health centrosome matrix and repetitive nucleotide sequence at each end of the chromosome.

Got that?

What’s with telomeres?

All of this refers to work that got a Nobel Prize for Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak in 2009.  They showed that telomeres, caps on the end of chromosomes, protect chromosomes from degradation.  Shorter telomeres are associated with cell aging.

What got my attention in this ad was its report of a 2018 clinical trial finding that this supplement reduced cellular age by more than 7 years.

Really?  I had some immediate questions.

What’s in the supplement? 

The ad doesn’t say anything other than “all natural food grade polyphenols.”  But I managed to find a Supplement Facts Label online.

Highly purified polyphenols extracted from grape and olive leaves?

These, by the way, cost about $100 for 30 capsules.

Whatever.

What’s the study? 

I was able to find it online: A randomized-controlled clinical study of Telos95® , a novel antioxidative dietary supplement, on the shortening of telomere length in healthy volunteers  

It’s in a journal I’ve never heard of previously: HealthMed, published in Bosnia and Herzogovina

The report of the study starts out rather peculiarly:

The objective of this study was to determine the deodorant effectiveness of a dietary supplement to halt the shortening of telomere length as measured through blood samples before and after product use.

Deodorant?  Maybe something is lost in translation here?

Who paid for the study?

The published paper doesn’t say.  It does, however, refer to a Sponsor responsible for the study’s protocols, safety evaluation of the products, and safety indemnification of Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR), the group that carried out the study.

PCR’s website, by the way, states that “PRINCETON CONSUMER RESEARCH IS NOT AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY TO PRINCETON UNIVERSITY”.  Whew.

PCR’s press release credits Certified Nutritionals as behind the study.

What is this all about?

The Daily Beast did an investigative report on something similar a couple of years ago.

Obviously, this is about selling a supplement made from rice at profits so great that Longevity by Nature can afford a full-page ad in the Times (these used to run in the $80,000 range, if not more).

It is also about the use of industry-sponsored research to sell products: the sponsored study –> press release –> huge advertisement –> increased product sales.

Will this product keep your telomeres from shortening?  If only.

The Business Roundtable’s Statement (and see B Corporation Statement below)

The Business Roundtable, an organization of corporations, issued a statement last week—in a two-page advertisement with all the signatures in the Wall Street Journal, no less—that got this New York Times headline: Shareholder Value Is No Longer Everything, Top C.E.O.s Say.

What?  This is some kind of joke, right?

I’ve been arguing for years that the Shareholder Value Movement, which forced corporations to single-mindedly focus on maximizing profits at the expense of every other societal value—attention to the welfare of workers, farm animals, public health, environmental protection—is responsible for just about everything that is wrong with our food system.

Corporations are now saying that they are committing to change that?

The Business Roundtable’s press release says that it is redefining the purpose of corporations to promote an economy that serves all Americans—customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders.   Here is its website with all the commitment info.

Its statement, signed by nearly 200 corporations, commits them to [with my comments]:

• Delivering value to our customers [they aren’t already doing this?].
• Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits [this would indeed be a groundbreaking improvement].
• Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers [they weren’t doing this either?].
• Supporting the communities in which we work [another excellent idea].
• Generating long-term value for shareholders [isn’t this what they’ve been doing to the detriment of everything else?]

This sounds good, but how do they plan to solve the central dilemma?  How do they intend to pay workers decent wages, improve the communities in which they operate, and stop damaging the environment—and still maximize benefits for shareholders?

No surprise, they don’t say.

Also, as the Times noted,

There was no mention at the Roundtable of curbing executive compensation, a lightning-rod topic when the highest-paid 100 chief executives make 254 times the salary of an employee receiving the median pay at their company. And hardly a week goes by without a major company getting drawn into a contentious political debate. As consumers and employees hold companies to higher ethical standards, big brands increasingly have to defend their positions on worker pay, guns, immigration, President Trump and more.

I looked for food corporations among the signers (sorry if I missed any):

• Aramark
• Bayer (it owns Monsanto)
• Coca-Cola
• Land O’Lakes
• PepsiCo
• Procter & Gamble
• Walmart

This is a small list.  Where, for example, are Mars, Nestlé, and Unilever?

I see this as flat out public relations, a response to increasing public distrust of corporate America and demands for corporate accountability.

If the signers mean business, let’s see them deal with workers’ wages right away.

Otherwise, I’m not holding my breath

The B Corporation Statement

And here’s more.  Sunday’s New York Times carried this advertisement from Certified B Corporations “meeting the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose.”

The ad is addressed to Business Rountable CEOs.

We are part of a community of Certified B Corporations who are walking the walk of stakeholder capitalism…We operate with a better model of corporate governance—benefit corporate governance—which gives us, and could give you, a way to combat short-termism and the freedom to make decisions to balance profit and purpose.

Among its food company signers are Ben & Jerry’s, Cabot Creamery Cooperative, Danone North America, King Arthur Flour, Sir Kensington’s, Stonyfield Organic, and Stumptown Coffee (there are others, as well).

I read this as a challenge: if the Business Rountable CEOs are serious about ensuring as B Corporations do, that “the purpose of capitalism is to work for everyone and for the long term,” why don’t they start by becoming B Corporations?

Until they do, the Business Roundtable statement is smoke and mirrors, to distract us from the damage the corporations are doing to our society and to our democratic institutions.

I’m watching what’s happening with Cannabis edibles with much interest.  Sales are booming.  Regulators are stymied.  Regulation is virtually absent—nobody seems to know how—and science, alas, hardly exists.

BakeryandSnacks.com fills the information gap with an Editor’s Spotlight on CBD [cannabidiol]-Infused Snacks, from the business perspective, as always.

•  LISTEN: Nanotechnology opens avenues for high-potency CBD-infused bakery and snacks: Infused By Epic has debuted a novel bioavailable CBD delivery system that can be incorporated into snacks and baked goods. Read more
• Marijuana ‘munchies’ tick up US snack sales: Nielsen has reported there has been a notable pick-up in the consumption of the so-called ‘munchies’ in US states where marijuana is legal, which has boosted the sales of snacks. Read more
•  LISTEN – Snacks with attitude: Should producers jump onto the CBD craze?  The rush to the so-called ‘shining new kid on the block’ – as Marcia Mogelonsky, director of Insight at Mintel Food and Drink terms it – has ignited like a wildfire and everyone is talking about it. But will it make vogue status? Read more
• NatureBox sells out CBD Wellness snack line in first week: According to the online snack brand, thousands of Americans signed up for early access to a limited release pre-sale of its CBD-infused fruit snacks. Read more
• 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 more
• SNAAK Bar launches first-ever hemp CBD sports bar on US market:  California-based SNAAK Bar has partnered with CV Sciences Inc. to create two new hemp-enriched nutrition bars designed to optimize sports performance. Read more
• NightFood explores CBD-infused snacks for better sleep:  NightFood Holdings is currently researching cannabidiol’s (CBD) medicinal benefits for sleep, hoping to develop or acquire a line of infused snacks in 2018. Read more
• Growing against regulations: Cannabis edibles industry’s significant profit margins are yet to be seen, Colorado marijuana bakers said:  Experts from the cannabis edibles industry have shattered the popular belief that manufacturers of cannabis-infused bakers are able to make large profit margins due to the growing cannabis market.  Read more
•  It’s all about understanding the consumer and offering the right snack at the right time for the right occasion:  This year, Barcelona in Spain played host to Snackex 2019, the 18th edition of Europe’s only international business event dedicated to the savory snacks sector. Read more

And I’ve collected a few more from other sources.

• ‘The prevalence of questionable products may inspire a tsunami of class action litigation…’ The regulatory path forward for CBD: While not everyone was on the same page about the legal path forward for hemp-derived CBD during Friday’s marathon FDA hearing, multiple speakers made clear that the current situation is untenable, with one predicting a wave of lawsuits, and others demanding that the agency either crack down on companies marketing such products, or explicitly spell out that existing regulatory frameworks can accommodate them… Read
• Insufficient scientific research & labeling constraints could limit use of CBD in food, supplements: When it comes to legally marketing conventional food and dietary supplements with CBD and other cannabis-derived compounds, FDA and industry appear stuck in a catch-22… Watch now
• ‘Virtual knockoff’: Mondeléz Canada warns of growing trend towards marketing edibles by ripping off popular snacks and candies: While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, ripping off a beloved children’s candy brand (SOUR PATCH Kids) in order to sell THC-infused gummies is no laughing matter, says Mondeléz Canada in a trademark infringement lawsuit against edibles brand STONEY PATCH..
• Cannabis sales could hit $41B by 2025, Nielsen predicts:  The research firm found the variety of products has grown significantly in four years — jumping from 166 brands in 2014 to 2,600 last year.And if you are really interested in this topic, and have a spare $1995 lying around, you can buy the Nutrition Business Journal’s Hemp and CBD Guide.

And here’s a free White Paper on Cannabis edibles—a cross-industry analysis.

I spotted some tweets about this study from Washington Post writer Tamar Haspel, who has a sharp eye for this sort of thing.  Her first tweet said:

Her second tweet explained the problem:

So of course I had to look up the study.  It’s not one I would ordinarily have noticed because its title does not use the word “probiotic,” which typically refers to the live bacteria (in yogurt, for example).  The evidence for benefits of probiotics is iffy, so this study raises lots of questions.

Let’s take a look at it:

The Study:  Supplementation with Akkermansia muciniphila in overweight and obese human volunteers: a proof-of-concept exploratory study. Depommier C, et al.  Nature Medicine (2019) Letter | Published: 01 July 2019.

Conclusion: I’ve left out the statistics to make this easier to read:  “Compared to placebo, pasteurized A. muciniphila improved insulin sensitivity…, and reduced insulinemia…and plasma total cholesterol…. Pasteurized A. muciniphila supplementation slightly decreased body weight…compared to the placebo group, and fat mass…and hip circumference…compared to baseline….In conclusion, this proof-of-concept study…shows that the intervention was safe and well tolerated and that supplementation with A. muciniphila improves several metabolic parameters.”

Competing interests:  Five of the authors “are inventors of patent applications…filed with [patent offices in at least 12 countries]…dealing with the use of A. muciniphila and its components in the context of obesity and related disorders.” Two of the authors are cofounders of A-Mansia Biotech S.A., a Belgian company that sells A. muciniphila supplements, presumably as weight-loss supplements.

Comment: As Haspel points out, the subjects in this study were given either (a) live bacteria, (b) Pasteurized (and, therefore, mostly dead) bacteria, or (c) a placebo.  The Pasteurized ones were associated with metabolic benefits and weight loss.  Pasteurization is what gets done to milk to kill most—not all—of the living bacteria it contains.  In this study, Pasteurized bacteria had the same effect on the microbiome as the unpasteurized.  The point of the study was to show that the Pasteurized supplement would induce weight loss; the observed loss, however, was not statistically significant.   Nature Medicine‘s editors should know better.  So should the New York Times’ editors.  Haspel points out that the New York Times account of the study accepted its conclusion uncritically, headlining it “A Probiotic for Obesity?”  At least the headline included a question mark.  The article did not mention the authors’ patents or conflicts of interest; it should have.

Bottom line: If you want to keep your microbiome healthy, eat a healthy diet.

I was fascinated to see this article about how offering kids greater amounts and varieties of snack foods encourages them to eat more and, therefore, take in more calories.  Snack variety has a greater effect than just larger package sizes (1).

This article immediately reminded me of the infamous cafeteria diet studies of the late 1980s.  The investigators fed rats all kinds of junk foods and compared the calories they ate to those eaten by control rats allowed only rat chow.  The cafeteria-fed rats ate more (2).

This, of course, is what Kevin Hall and his colleagues found when adults were allowed to eat as much as they wanted of ultraprocessed junk foods (3).

The message is clear: junk food encourages overeating; overeating means taking in more calories; more calories means more weight.  Eating a lot of junk food is a sufficient explanation for obesity.

References

1.  Kerr JA, et al. Child and adult snack food intake in response to manipulated pre-packaged snack item quantity/variety and snack box size: a population-based randomized trial. International Journal of Obesity (2019).
2. Prats E, et al.  Energy intake of rats fed a cafeteria diet.  Physiol Behav. 1989 Feb;45(2):263-72.
3. Hall K, et al.  Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake .  Cell Metabolism 2019; 30:67–77.

I was pleased to be invited to contribute to the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition’s “crystal ball” series:

The Crystal Ball Series is a collection of papers from prominent figures in the nutrition field. Through this collection the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition hopes to profile the paths of the eminent individuals [sic] nutrition journey; how they came to it and what have their contributions to nutrition science been. In addition, we ask them to share what they would like to see done now, where they see their area heading, the potential pitfalls, and over all what do they see in their crystal ball for the future of nutrition research.

Here’s my response, titled “A Food lover’s love of nutrition science, policy, and politics.”

Enjoy!

Here is a summary of another funded study with results the funder must love.

Joint associations between weekday and weekend physical activity or sedentary time and childhood obesity.  Li N, and 19 additional authors for the ISCOLE Research Group. International Journal of Obesity (2019) 43:691–700.

Conclusions: Lower levels of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity] or higher levels of sedentary time on either weekdays or weekend were associated with increased odds of obesity in 9–11 year old children in 12 countries.

Funding: The International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE) was funded by The Coca-Cola Company… With the exception of requiring that the study be global in nature, the funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Comment: This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain.  Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.  Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake.

I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.  In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, “not the other way around.”

He also questions the “no influence” statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of

emails between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.

As I discuss in Unsavory Truth, the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.

As I also discuss in that book, Coca-Cola generously funded the ISCOLE study some years ago.  It has since changed its policy on research funding.

Unsavory Truth came out late last year, but I’m following up by posting recent examples of the issues it covers.  Here, for example, is a recent study that caught my eye:

The role of dietary sugars in health: molecular composition or just calories?  Philip Prinz. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2019).

A big argument in nutrition right now is whether the metabolic dysfunction that results from excessive consumption of sugars is due to the sugars themselves or to the calories they produce (or, I suppose, to both).

The author who attempted to answer this question conducted a lengthy and detailed review of research on the effects of sugars on obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic conditions .  His conclusion:

Current scientific evidence does not support the conclusion that dietary sugars themselves are detrimental to human health and the cause of obesity as well as NCDs [non-communicable— chronic—diseases]. Data from human studies clearly shows that it is the excess amount of calories, also consumed in form of dietary sugars, that promotes obesity and with that favors NCDs. For sucrose, further research is needed in order to evaluate the relevance of its molecular composition, especially in comparison with other macronutrients.

In other words, you don’t have to worry about sugars; just don’t overeat anything.

So, who paid for this?

The paper provides no disclosures of funding or conflicted interests.

But if you click on Philip Prinz, you will see that he is with the Department of Nutritional Sciences, German Sugar Association, Berlin, Germany

Comment

My interpretation of this literature generally favors calories (see my book with Malden Nesheim, Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics).  As I see it, when it comes to weight gain, how much you eat matters more than what you eat, especially if your diet is reasonably healthy.

But I would be much more confident in conclusions like these if they came from a researcher whose salary did not depend on producing desirable results for a sugar association.

And everybody would be better off eating less sugar, for reasons of nutritional health, if not necessarily weight.