The Beef Board, the USDA-managed checkoff program for marketing beef, proudly announces its new partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA).  The Beef Board gets its money from a compulsory tax on cattle ranchers computed every time they sell an animal.  Evidently, the money is well spent.

The AHA will put its HeartCheck symbol on three cuts of lean beef:

• Boneless Top Sirloin Petite Roast (select grade)
• Top Sirloin Filet (select grade)
• Top Sirloin Kabob (select grade)

A member of the Beef Board says: “”We are extremely thrilled to receive the American Heart Association certification because, for consumers, it represents the independent voice of a trusted health organization.”

I’ll bet they are.

Today’s quiz: How much money is the Beef Board paying the AHA to use its CheckMark logo?

I hope it’s a lot more than what the AHA gets (or used to get) for putting its check mark on sugary cereals.  This was $4,500 per product when I updated Food Politics in 2007.  After all, sugary cereals don’t have any saturated fat or cholesterol so they must be heart healthy, no?

Ah partnerships and alliances.  You have to love them.  How will the Beef Board use the HeartCheck?  With an I ♥ Beef  campaign, of course.  Fat content unspecified.

Michael Taylor, the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, gave a talk in London yesterday at a meeting of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GSFI).

GSFI, for the policy wonks among you, is a project of the Paris-based Consumer Goods Forum (formerly CIES), which brings together CEO-level food industry executives to discuss topics of mutual interest—a World Economic Forum for food companies, as it were.

I’ve given several talks at these meetings over the years, presumably because the organizers like to stir up some controversy once in a while.

Mr. Taylor’s speech, which you can read here in its entirety, does not seem particularly controversial—unless you think that making business responsible for ensuring food safety is controversial:

For those of you who live and work in the European Union countries, imported food is a fact of daily life.

And many emerging economies recognize that food exports can help drive their economic growth.

It is for these reasons – high public expectations and expanding trade in food – that the effort to improve food safety and to build prevention in from farm to table is a global movement…and is good business.

It is a global movement that, very importantly, recognizes that the primary responsibility for prevention rests with business – with those who produce, process, import, and market food.

Consumers certainly have a role to play as food handlers and preparers.

And, of course, government plays a vital role in providing scientific leadership, setting standards for effective prevention of food safety problems, and ensuring through inspection and other means that those standards are understood and met.

But everything we do to improve food safety rests on the foundation of the food industry fulfilling its duty to do everything it reasonably can to make food safe.

FoodSafetyNews has more details on what the meeting was about.   Taylor’s speech is a sign that the FDA is on the job.

If you were a UK Health Secretary faced with soaring rates of obesity, alcohol misuse, and diet-related diseases, what would you do? Were you to take an evidence-based approach, you might consider minimum pricing per unit of alcohol and restrictions on its availability. You might look at toughening the regulation of how the least healthy foods are marketed to children.

You could even demand that manufacturers reformulate their least healthy products to meet minimum nutritional standards. Or you could, if your name was Andrew Lansley, dismiss all of the above and instead invite representatives of McDonald’s, PepsiCo, and the drinks giant Diageo among others, to submit their policy suggestions on how best to deal with the UK’s public-health crises for a forthcoming governmental white paper.

After the initial surprise, it can still take a while for the bizarre reality to sink in—that the companies who have profited the most from the epidemics of obesity and alcohol misuse should now be responsible for setting the agenda on public health simply beggars belief.

…The creeping influence of corporate power on public policy is not news to anyone in the UK, but the breathtaking speed and scale by which the UK coalition Government is embracing the agenda of business at the expense of the health of the electorate is an unwelcome novelty. By putting the interests of big business at the heart of public-health policy, Lansley is ensuring that the UK’s big society will not be shedding the pounds any time soon.

The Lancet is a British medical journal with unusual and highly commendable editorial interests in international public health.  I’m happy to see it take on questions about the role of corporations in obesity.  The British Food Standards Agency was doing a good job of trying to institute policy approaches to obesity prevention, but these are not popular with corporations.  Recall: eating less is very bad for business.

And this kind of resistance to policy approaches is not just a British or European problem.  Our corporations also prefer what they do to be voluntary. So this is a cautionary tale.

Everyone seems to be worried about world food prices these days, apparently for good reason.

According to the World Bank, rising prices have pushed 44 million more people into poverty. Its Food Price Watch report for February does not contain much good news.

The USDA is projecting equally bad news for the prices of agricultural commodities.  These are expected to reach record levels through 2020.

Time Magazine says biofuels are a big factor in rising food prices.

And the United Nations is warning that climate change is the ultimate driver of this problem as well as other causes of world instability.

The good news is that all of this leaves plenty of things for food advocates to work on.  Get busy!

Margo Wootan, the nutrition policy director at  Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), sent along CSPI’s new materials on its Default Project—making healthy kids’ meals the default.

This is a really good idea.  Plenty of evidence shows that customers typically take the default whenever it is offered.

The idea is that if parents order a “happy meal” for their kids, the meal is automatically a healthy one.  Parents can always order junk food for their kids if they want to, so the choice is theirs.

I’ve been telling restaurant chain owners to do this for years.  It’s great to have the rationale explained and substantiated.  Thanks Margo!

I just got off a subway car adorned with posters advertising the New York City Health Department’s “Are you pouring on the pounds?” campaign.  They are riveting.

They make a simple point, but one that is not always understood:  Soft drinks contain sugar, and lots of it.

Lots of sugar—all those packets—will make you fat.

The campaign also includes a tough video.

New York City’s Health Department is taking on the city’s high rates of heart disease and type 2 diabetes in every way it can.

Take a look.  What do you think?  Will this work?

I’ve been asked repeatedly this week to comment on the huge press outcry about a study that links diet sodas to an increased risk of stroke and heart disease.

I have not seen the study and neither has anyone else. It is not yet published.

It was presented at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference 2011.  The American Heart Association has a short summary on its website.  And Rosie Mestel has an excellent account in the Los Angeles Times.

Here’s what I can glean from the limited information available:

• The study started in 2003.  It was designed to determine risk factors for heart disease and stroke in a multi-ethnic New York City population.
• It used a food frequency questionnaire to ask about 2,500 people how often they drank diet sodas (among many other questions).
• Nine years later, it assessed rates of stroke and heart disease.
• The result: people who said they habitually drank diet sodas had a 60% higher rate of stroke and heart attacks.
• They had a 48% higher rate when the data were controlled for contributing factors: age, sex, race, smoking, exercise, alcohol, daily calories, and metabolic syndrome.

That is all we know.

Does this study really mean that “diet soda may not be the optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages for protection against vascular outcomes,” as the lead author is quoted as saying?

As Rosie Mestel puts it:

It’s worth noting, as some scientists did, that this is a link, not proof of cause and effect. After all, there are many things that people who slurp diet sodas every day are apt to do – like eat a lousy diet — and not all of these can be adjusted for, no matter how hard researchers try. Maybe those other factors are responsible for the stroke and heart attack risk, not the diet drinks. (Those who drink daily soda of any stripe, diet or otherwise, are probably not the most healthful among us.)

Leaving questions about the accuracy of dietary information obtained by questionnaire, the study raises more important questions:

1. Could this finding simply be a statistical result of a “fishing expedition?”  The food frequency questionnaire undoubtedly asked hundreds of questions about diet and other matters.  Just by chance, some of them are going to give results that look meaningful.  The increase in stroke risk seems astonishingly high and that also suggests a need for skepticism.
2. What is the mechanism by which diet sodas lead to stroke or heart disease?  I can’t think of any particular reason why they would unless they are a marker for some known risk factor for those conditions.

Please understand that I am no fan of diet sodas.  I don’t like the metallic taste of artificial sweeteners and they are excluded by  my “don’t eat” rule: never eat anything artificial.

But before I believe that this study means that artificial sweeteners cause cardiovascular problems, I want to see a study designed to test this particular hypothesis and a plausible biological reason for how diet sodas might cause such problems.

The 2010 edition of the dietary guidelines appeared on January 31.  Since then, FoodNavigator-USA, an online daily newsletter for the food industry, says it has been gathering reactions and taking a look at how the guidelines are likely to affect food and beverage companies.   Here are its reports.

‘Eat less’: A difficult message for industry: The new dietary guidelines give the food industry the clearest map yet of what is necessary for a healthy diet – but no one is fooled by assertions that industry is already in line.

2010 Dietary Guidelines: Opportunity for continued industry innovation: In this guest article, Melissa Musiker of the Grocery Manufacturers Association says that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines are an opportunity for industry to find better ways to innovate, as part of a collective responsibility to improve American diets.

How the 2010 guidelines affect food technologists:  The 2010 Dietary Guidelines’ new focus on reducing energy intake will present major reformulation challenges for food technologists, says the Institute of Food Technologists’ (IFT) president-elect.

Politics too influential in new Dietary Guidelines, says nutrition expert [that would be me]:  The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans are still too heavily influenced by political interests – but the initial consumer messaging was ‘fantastic’, according to nutrition and public policy expert Marion Nestle.

‘Total diet’ in the 2010 Dietary Guideline: The latest version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans includes a new focus on the importance of total diet. FoodNavigator-USA spoke to Cynthia Harriman of Oldways to get the perspective of the organization behind the Mediterranean diet pyramid.

USDA releases 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has updated the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for the first time since 2005, with a number of small changes that could make a big difference for the food industry.

Industry welcomes USDA Dietary Guidelines supplements shift: The US dietary supplements industry has welcomed the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which demonstrated a thawing in attitude toward supplements use from a Guidelines committee that has previously balked at recommending them.