TODAY on Zoom: 11:00 a.m.  Register here.

*******

I’m always fascinated by the food industry’s rationale for massive layoffs.

PepsiCo, for example.

It is planning to lay off hundreds of workers (see Washington Post announcement, and Food Navigator discussion).

The Wall Street Journal report’s Pepsi’s rationale:
PepsiCo Inc. PEP -0.37% is laying off workers at the headquarters of its North American snacks and beverages divisions, a signal that corporate belt-tightening is extending beyond tech and media, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal…In a memo sent to staff that was viewed by the Journal, PepsiCo told employees that the layoffs were intended “to simplify the organization so we can operate more efficiently.”

PepsiCo reported a 12% increase in revenues last year.

Its global revenues came close to $80 billion in 2021.

PepsiCo Beverages North America’s operating profit has recently decreased by 10%,

primarily reflecting certain operating cost increases, including incremental transportation costs, a 37-percentage-point impact of higher commodity costs and higher advertising and marketing expenses. These impacts were partially offset by net revenue growth and productivity savings.

It paid its CEO $25,506,607 in 2021.  This is 500 times more than the median employee salary of $52,000.

That’s how the system works.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, during the seventeenth session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage has incribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity—ta da!—baguette bread.

The traditional production process entails weighing and mixing the ingredients, kneading, fermentation, dividing, relaxing, manually shaping, second fermentation, marking the dough with shallow cuts (the baker’s signature) and baking. Unlike other loaves, the baguette is made with only four ingredients (flour, water, salt and leaven and/or yeast) from which each baker obtains a unique product. Baguettes require specific knowledge and techniques…They also generate modes of consumption and social practices that differentiate them from other types of bread…Their crisp crust and chewy texture result in a specific sensory experience.

The New York Times account points out that this designation comes in the midst of “economic upheavals that include rising prices and the widespread closing of the country’s rural bakeries.”

The decision captured more than the craft knowledge of making bread — it also honored a way of life that the thin crusty loaf has long symbolized and that recent economic upheavals have put under threat. UNESCO’s choice came as boulangeries in rural areas are vanishing, hammered by economic forces like the slow hollowing out of France’s villages, and as the economic crisis gripping Europe has pushed the baguette’s price higher than ever.

* The photo is of Salvador Dali’s Bust of a Woman at MOMA.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Healthy People 2030 has released its latest set of tracking data.  This, you will recall, is the latest of the US Public Health Service’s 10-year plans for improving the health of Americans.  The agencies involved set specific, measurable objectives and track progress toward achieving them.

You can browse the full set of objectives here.

The objectives for overweight and obesity are here.  Three have tracking data available.  Of these,

One shows no change: Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents with obesity — NWS‑04

Two are getting worse

• Reduce the proportion of adults with obesity — NWS‑03
• Increase the proportion of women who had a healthy weight before pregnancy — MICH‑13

The objectives for Nutrition and Healthy Eating are here.

Of the objectives with data available, two showi improvement!

As regular readers know, I subscribe to the weekly newsletter, Obesity and Energetics Offerings, and particularly enjoy its section on Headline vs Study.

Here’s a particularly amusing example, which right away triggers my question: Who paid for this?

Headline vs Study

• Headline: Snacking on Almonds Can Help People Reduce Calorie Intake: Study.  
• Press Release: Believe It or ‘Nut’, Almonds Can Help You Cut Calories, Study Finds.  
• Study: “There was no significant difference in total energy intake ([…] p = 0.286) or energy from core ([…] p = 0.860) or discretionary foods ([…] p = 0.158) between [almonds and an isocaloric carbohydrate-rich snack bar].”

Let’s take a look.

Headline: Snacking on Almonds Can Help People Reduce Calorie Intake: Study.

A handful of almonds may be the latest weight loss hack, new research suggests.

A new study from the University of South Australia found that eating 30 to 50 grams of almonds could regulate appetite, leading to less calories consumed each day.

The research, which examined both the hormones that regulate appetite and how almonds could aid in controlling hunger, discovered that the consumption of the nut ultimately led to about 300 fewer calories [sic*]consumed at the following meal.

Press Release: Believe It or ‘Nut’, Almonds Can Help You Cut Calories, Study Finds.

Examining how almonds can affect appetite, researchers found that a snack of 30-50 grams of almonds could help people cut back on the number of kilojoules they consume each day.

Published in the European Journal of Nutrition, the study found that people who consumed almonds — as opposed to an energy-equivalent carbohydrate snack — lowered their energy intake by 300 kilojoules (most of which came from junk food) at the subsequent meal.

Study:  Acute feeding with almonds compared to a carbohydrate-based snack improves appetite-regulating hormones with no effect on self-reported appetite sensations: a randomised controlled trial. Carter, S., Hill, A.M., Buckley, J.D. et al.Eur J Nutr (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-022-03027-2

Results: “…Cholecystokinin, ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1, leptin and polypeptide YY AUCs were not different between groups. Self-reported appetite ratings and energy intake following the buffet did not differ between groups.”

Conclusion: “More favourable appetite-regulating hormone responses to AL did not translate into better self-reported appetite or reduced short-term energy consumption. Future studies should investigate implications for longer term appetite regulation.”

Funding: “This work was funded by the Almond Board of California. This funding source had no role in the design of this study or the analysis and interpretation of the data.”

Conflict of interest: “AMC has consulted for Nuts for Life (an initiative of the Australian Tree Nut Industry). S-YT has previously been involved in studies funded by the Californian Walnut Commission. AMC, JDB and S-YT have previously been involved in studies funded by International Nut and Dried Fruit Council.”

*Comment: How could the headline get it so wrong?  The authors write: “Although not significant, the AL group consumed 300 kJ less energy in the meal challenge than the SB group, 270 kJ of which came from discretionary foods, which may be a clinically important benefit in weight management.”  The sic partly explains the problem.  The 300 refers to kilojoules (kj), not calories.  300 kj = 72 calories, not 300.  No wonder the result wasn’t statistically significant.

But the press release and resulting headline explain why the nut industry funds studies like this.  Even when the result shows no difference, the PR people can spin the data to produce the expected favorable result.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

For some reason, I’ve only just run across this account of food industry lobbying in the UK.

The introduction explains what the paper is about:

In this Discussion Paper, we examine the interactions of businesses with three major UK government departments, identify  weaknesses in the current disclosure process, and compare UK procedures with the more stringent disclosure requirements in two other English-speaking countries, Ireland and Canada, which tend to produce more specific and transparent data.

The authors are not trying to stop food industry lobbying; they just want it to be disclosed and at least as transparently as is required in Ireland and Canada.

In the United States, the best (only?) way to find out about food industry lobbying is to check the Open Secrets website.  It takes some exploration to find what you might be looking for, but it’s worth the trouble for this kind of result.

Or the top ten food and beverage spenders on lobbying.

If you can find it, the site identifies lobbyists, issues, and notes the revolving door between industry lobbyists and government positions.  It’s good to know these things.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Food Safety News hosted an opinion piece by Sarah Gallo, vice president of product policy for the Consumer Brands Association (formerly the Grocery Manufacturers of America, an industry organization I’ve written about frequently, most recently about its name change).

Ms. Gallo joins consumer food advocates in arguing that the FDA needs reform (see Helena Bottemiller Evich’s account here).

The FDA is released its internal review yesterday (see my post), with insiders doing the reviewing (see Helena Bottemiller Evich’s account here).

Here’s what the food industry says it wants (my selection from Ms. Gallo’s list):

• Quicker reviews of new foods and ingredients.
• Tailored inspections.
• Updated recall processes.
• Flexible food labeling.
• Improved industry collaboration.
• “A transparent regulatory agenda for chemicals in packaging.”
• Better IT systems.

It’s hard to argue with some of these, and I won’t.

Yesterday’s report recommends some of these, not all (see my post on it).

The Coonsumer Brand Association liked the report.  Here’s why:

The FDA is a public health agency; it is part of the US Public Health Service.

I want to see it put public health first in everything it does.

If this means coming up against the food and beverage industry, so be it.  That’s its job.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The Expert Committee tasked with evaluating the FDA’s human foods program has released its report.

The Committee begins by pointing out that to do its job, the FDA needs adequate resources, sufficient authority, and a structure and culture that breeds success.

In its judgment, the FDA has none of those.  Instead, it is an agency in “constant turmoil.”

The report focuses on lack of leadership.

A leadership skill set, it says, should include:

• Expertise and knowledge in food safety and/or nutrition
• Ability to make decisions in a complex regulatory environment
• Ability to lead in a complex work environment
• Strong demonstrated management capability
• Superb communication skills
• Ability to identify and nurture talent

Instead, the FDA is risk averse, which it admits is “not surprising in a program subject to significant external criticism.”

The committee makes many (too many) recommendations:

Identify vision and mission.

Change the agency’s culture.

Give it more resources.  Food programs are under-resourced; budget and staffing have been flat for at least a decade.

Expand user fees.  [Uh oh.  Bad idea.  The committee even explains why, but ignores the hazard.]

There is also significant skepticism in the public interest community about the potential for “industry capture” of the Human Foods Program if FDA is overly reliant on industry fees.  Efforts to establish structures to secure additional industry funding, such as enhanced registration fees, may address these concerns. While the Panel acknowledges these concerns, the Panel recommends that FDA explore whether common ground can be found on this issue.

Reinstate the Food Advisory Committee.  [I was on the first one in the early 1990s, but our job was to react to decisions the agnecy had already made, not advise it about tough issues].

Reorganize the agency to give the food programs more visibility, integrate them, and give them clear lines of authority [Note: one big weakness of this project is that the committee was instructed not to include the Center for Veterinary Medicine, as if food for pets and food animals has nothing to do with the human food supply, which of course it does].

The report gives five options for reorganization, all of them complicated and undoubtedly politically difficult.  It lists their strengths and weaknesses, but does not state a preference.

• Create a separate food administration within HHS
• Create a Deputy Commissioner for Foods
• Put CFSAN in charge of human food programs
• Puts Commissioner in charge of human food programs
• Create a Deputy Commissioner for Foods

Do more about nutrition labeling, research on consumer behavior.  [Really?  That’s all?]

Comment: The committee only had a couple of months to pull this together and was required to leave out the Center for Veterinary Medicine.  Even so, the report makes it clear that the FDA is in serious trouble, so much so that the committee did not even get into what the FDA ought to be doing about about taking steps to prevent diet-influenced chronic disease.  This, of course, would require it to take on the food industry—an unlikely scenario given everything else that’s not happening.

The next step is to see what the Commissioner does with the report, if anything.  And whether Congress will appropriate more funding.

The report did not say a word about what I see as a major political handicap for the FDA; it’s funding comes from congressional agriculture committees, not health committees, even though FDA is an agency of the public health service.   That too needs to change.

What the press is saying:

• Washington Post: Scathing report recommends major changes at FDA, including possibly breaking up agency
• Bloomberg:  FDA’s Food Program Needs Strong Leader, Outside Reviewers Find
• USA Today:  Report finds FDA’s food regulatory agency lacks leadership, is in ‘constant turmoil’
• Politico:  ‘Constant turmoil’ at FDA’s food regulatory agency, report says

Anda quote from a colleague:

“While we appreciate the Panel’s thoughtful attempt to dig into complicated food issues and their recommendation to elevate nutrition/chronic food illness, creating a seperate, unfunded, nutrition center would have the opposite effect. That’s unacceptable.” Jerold Mande CEO Nourish Science

Everyfive years or so, Congress gets to work on a new Farm Bill.  This is a big job.

I’ve written about the Farm Bill previously.  See, for example, my opinion piece in Politico: “The Farm Bill drove me insane.”

Here are two recent publications to get you started.

The Congressional Research Service has a handy guide with summaries of its full collection of primers for the a 2018 bill.

There are 23 primers summarized in this report and organized under descriptive headings rather than by farm bill titles to facilitate accessibility for those who are not familiar with the 2018 farm bill. The concept behind these primers is to provide relevant information on key programs and policy initiatives authorized by the 2018 farm bill in a concise format that serves as a quick-reference resource for Members of Congress and congressional staff. To this end, the primers describe many of the leading programs and policies within the 2018 farm bill. They also identify some of the higher-profile policy issues that may arise as Congress engages in the process of writing a new farm bill and highlight some policy options that Congress could consider as it undertakes this task. The titles of the primers are hyperlinked for easy access.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has a statement of principles for congressional reform of the bill.

US food and agriculture policies are in need of reform. Some of the country’s largest agricultural operations receive unlimited subsidies while beginning farmers struggle to afford land. Crop prices recently rose to record highs, but challenging input costs – for everything from fuel to fertilizer – are eating away at profits. Food supply and inflation challenges continue to make headlines. Meanwhile, children go to bed hungry while one-third of food is wasted.

Comment: Here’s one reason why:

Reforming the Farm Bill is badly needed but won’t be easy for reasons of history and politics.  Getting it passed is expected to be exceptionally difficult for the same reasons.  80% or so of its spending is for SNAP—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  The rest goes largely to producers of feed for animals and fuel for automobiles.  How’s that for vested interests!

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.