Search results: app

Lobbying is legal; it is simply requests of legislators by interest groups for action in their own interests.  Everyone can do this, but corporations that donate to election campaigns have greater access to legislators and also deeper pockets to pay people to do this work.  And lobbyists are often former employees of government regulator agencies who now work for corporations—the “revolving door.”  The biggest problem for food advocacy groups: finding the funds to pay people to lobby for their issues.

Recent reports on lobbying and lobbyists:

I.  Food Research Collaboration: Examination of power, access, and influence of participants at the recent COP26 climate change negotiations in Glasgow.  Conclusions:

• The Brazilian delegation had the highest number of food industry representatives, including beef producers.
• Food industry members attended as part of groups officially considered Non-Governmental Organisations.
• Representatives of many food corporations and trade groups attended.

II.  Dive Wire: Where the dollars go: Lobbying a big business for large food and beverage CPGs.  Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, AB InBev and 27 other companies spend close to $40 million a year on issues including trade and taxes in an effort to make their voices heard by lawmakers and regulators.

III.  American Enterprise Institute: Political Influence Efforts in the U.S. Through Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: An Index Approach

IV.  American Enterprise Institute.   Farm-Sector Spending on Federal Campaign Contributions snd Lobbying Expenditures: Evidence from 2003 to 2020.

Here’s why the farm sector lobbies:

The system is rigged: no group advocating for small and medium farms, “horticulture vs. commodities, conservation, sustainability, or regenerative agriculture can possibly compete with Big Food or Big Ag.

I’m kind of a dairy agnostic.  If you like dairy foods, fine; if not, don’t eat them.

But the arguments about them are fierce, and the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise choosing low-fat alternatives.

So when I saw the title of this study, I wondered whether it had been funded by the dairy industry.  It was not, although some of the investigators have dairy industry ties.

The study: Whole-fat dairy products do not adversely affect adiposity or cardiometabolic risk factors in children in the Milky Way Study: a double-blind randomized controlled pilot study.  Analise Nicholl, Kane E Deering, Kate Evelegh, Philippa Lyons-Wall, David Lawrence, Trevor A Mori, Mario Kratz, Therese A O’Sullivan.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 114, Issue 6, December 2021, Pages 2025–2042, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab288

Conclusions: Our results suggest that although changing from whole-fat to reduced-fat dairy products does reduce dairy fat intake, it does not result in changes to markers of adiposity or cardiometabolic disease risk in healthy children.

Acknowledgments: …The Principal Investigator, TAOS, was awarded funding in 2011 for a previous study from the Dairy Health and Nutrition Consortium. MK has received honoraria and reimbursements for travel as well as a research grant from several dairy-related organizations, including National Dairy Council/Dairy Management Inc., Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Dutch Dairy Association (Nederlandse Zuivel Organisatie), Dairy Australia, and the French Interbranch Organization (CNIEL). All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Notes: …No funding body played any role in the Milky Way Study design, implementation, analysis or interpretation of the data, or publication. The Milky Way Study received no funding from any dairy or food industry organization or affiliation toward study research, dairy product purchase or provision, child assessments, project personnel, or publication.

Comment: No funding body needed to be involved in this study to raise questions of conflicted interests; two of the authors report financial ties to dairy companies.  At the very least, these ties give the appearance of conflict of interest.  Are dairy foods good, bad, or indifferent for health?  My guess is that like pretty much everything else in the diet, it depends on everything else you are eating (unless you are lactose or dairy protein intolerant, in which case you know to avoid dairy foods).  The underlying purpose of this study is to encourage sales of full-fat dairy products to children.   Is that a good idea?  You decide.

Reference: For a summary of research on the “funding effect”—the observation that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests, but that recipients of industry funding typically do not recognize its influence—see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

Healthy food? What’s that?

The FDA is working on a definition of “healthy” on food labels.

Blame KIND bars for all this.

The chronology of this saga.

2015: KIND puts the word “Healthy” on the labels of its whole-food bars.  FDA issues warning letter to KIND because its labels do not meet the requirements to make health claims.

2016: FDA reconsiders, says KIND can use “healthy.”   FDA issues request for information and comments on Guidance for Industry: Use of the Term “Healthy” in the Labeling of Human Food Products.

2017: FDA says it will reevaluate use of the term; holds public meeting on how to redefine the term “healthy” as a nutrient content claim.

2018: FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy includes defining the term.

Healthy” is one claim that the FDA believes is ready for change, and we have already signaled our intention to update the criteria for this claim. The Agency is considering how to depict “healthy” on the package so that consumers can easily find it. Similarly, the FDA has also received requests for clarity on the use of “natural” in labeling. Just like other claims made on products regulated by FDA, we believe the “natural” claim must be true and based in science.

2019: The FDA proposes, and OMB approves, focus group review of a “healthy” icon on food packages.

As one of the methods for achieving this step of the Action Plan, the FDA is exploring the development of a graphic symbol to help consumers identify packaged food products that would meet an FDA definition for “healthy.” The symbol would be voluntary, allowing packaged food companies to place it on their products if the products meet the FDA definition of “healthy.”

2021: FDA again sends proposal to redefine “healthy to OMB, and announces further research on developing a ‘healthy” icon.

Nutrient Content Claims, Definition of Term: Healthy: The proposed rule would update the definition for the implied nutrient content claim “healthy,” and would revise the requirements for when the claim “healthy” can be voluntarily used in the labeling of human food products. In a separate but related action, on 7 May 2021 the FDA issued a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it is conducting preliminary quantitative consumer research on symbols that could be used in the future to convey the “healthy” claim on packaged foods.

The FDA has not said what definition it is considering.  I can think of three possible options:

• Nutrient-based: Below some level of sugar, salt, calories, or whatever
• Food-based: Must contain a fruit, vegetable, or whole grain
• Process-based: Must be unprocessed, processed, or minimally processed; cannot be ultra-processed

Anything other than process-based is too easy for food companies to game.

Center for Science in the Public Interest has plenty of concerns.

Allowing some products to carry a ‘healthy’ claim because they contain a minimal amount of a fruit, vegetable, or other recommended food would just make it easier for veggie chips and ‘fruit’ snacks to compete with fresh fruits and vegetables…No matter how FDA defines the term, consumers should realize that manufacturers will mostly be interested in using ‘healthy’ for marketing purposes—to sell you more processed food that you may not need.

The voluntary nature of the “healthy” symbol also raises questions.  If a food label does not use the symbol, how will anyone know if it’s not there because the product does not meet the definition of “healthy” or if its maker just chose not to use the symbol?

On “healthy,” whether word or symbol: stay tuned.

Leafy greens pose a seemingly intractable food safety problem.

• They are responsible for many harmful and deadly outbreaks of toxic E. coli (lawyer Bill Marler has a handy table listing outbreaks from 1995 to 2019).
• They are mostly eaten raw.
• They are often grown on land adjacent to dairy farms or cattle grazing or irrigated with water containing waste from animal agriculture.

The FDA is now taking on this last point.  It is is proposing standards for water use on produce for human consumption:  FDA.  Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption Relating to Agricultural Water: Notice of proposed rulemaking.  The key provisions:

This proposal would replace the microbial criteria and testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water for covered produce (other than sprouts) with provisions for systems-based agricultural water assessments that are designed to be more feasible to implement across the wide variety of agricultural water systems, uses, and practices, while also being adaptable to future advancements in agricultural water quality science and achieving improved public health protections. Additionally, we are proposing to require
expedited mitigation for hazards related to certain activities associated with adjacent and nearby lands, in light of findings from several recent produce outbreak investigations.

Translation: Farms would have to assess where contamination of irrigation water might occur and take steps to prevent it, but will not have to test the water.

In its press release, the FDA says:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a proposed rule that aims to enhance the safety of produce. It proposes to require farms to conduct comprehensive assessments that would help them identify and mitigate hazards in water used to grow produce. This is the latest step in the agency’s implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), and it proposes to replace some of the existing requirements for agricultural water in the Produce Safety Rule (PSR).

This updates the FDA’s previous attempts:

• Food Safety Modernization Act Proposed Rule on Agricultural Water
• Agricultural Water Assessment Fact Sheet  
• FSMA Final Rule on Produce Safety

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler asks: Is FDA creating a HACCP for Produce? Are assessment and mitigation going to create safer produce?

He notes that the FDA is focusing on “pre-harvest risk assessment of water risk as opposed to water testing for pathogens generally.”  This requires produce growers to evaluate local pathogen risks such as cattle operations and/or wild animal populations and then take measures to prevent them from contaminating water supplies.

But without having to test the water, it’s going to be hard to confirm that the assessment of risk actually reduces it.  Marler says:

So, in my view the jury is still out on 1) will eliminating water testing and increasing assessments make for a safer product? and, 2) should there not be a recognition that produce is essentially a “ready-to-eat” product grown outside with the risks inherent by what is directly around it or what may blow or flow to it, and therefore a broader environmental approach will be required to assure produce safety?

Is the FDA backing off of safety requirements?  The link explains how to file comments.  Now is the time to weigh in.

New items come out every day about the plant-based market for alternatives to meat and dairy foods.  Think of this as big business and hyper-marketing.

• By the numbers: Plant-based food sales and prices: In 2020, plant-based food retail sales grew 27% to be worth $7 billion, according to SPINS data released by the Good Food Institute and the Plant Based Foods Association. And even as consumers spent more money on groceries due to the pandemic, the plant-based segment grew at a faster clip than traditional products as a whole.
• Impossible Foods confirms plans for UK launch: The US brand, infamous for its meat-free burger that appears to ‘bleed’ like real meat, has confirmed plans to launch in Britain after applying for regulatory approval…. Read more
• Tracking the plant-based protein movement: Maple Leaf Foods’ Field Roast brand launches pea protein-based pepperoni at Whole Foods and Filipino brand UnMeat comes to a West Coast retail chain.5 ways to boost plant-based products in grocery stores: While there are many factors that play into plant-based product sales — including the category’s buzz, sustainability issues, animal welfare concerns, food allergies and the perception of a better health profile — retailers are an important link in the chain.. A study conducted by PBFA and Kroger between December 2019 and last February found that plant-based meat products sell 23% better when they’re in the meat section.
  Food flavour facility to explore sustainable plant-based foods:  The University of Nottingham has joined forces with the University of Adelaide to launch a new international food flavour facility to improve the taste of sustainable, healthy, plant-based food and ingredients. Read more
• Brits seek UK oat-drinks, but unaware of plant-based origins: Glebe Farms: A majority of Brits would prefer to buy plant-based milk from the UK, but many are unaware where their dairy alternatives are coming from, according to Glebe Farm Foods. Read more
• Quorn and Wibble Foods: Latest vegan launches: Meat alternatives firm Quorn and plant-based jelly pot manufacturer Wibble Foods revealed new vegan NPD this week. Read more
• Nestlé plant-based launches and cereal reformulation: Nestlé has boosted its vegan offering with the launch of plant-based egg and shrimp, as its reveals its latest progress toward reducing sugar in its cereal products. Read more
• Dairy… the next generation? General Mills unveils animal-free cream cheese alternative: Bold Cultr: General Mills has made a move into the emerging ‘animal-free’ dairy category with a brand called Bold Cultr – a lactose-free cream cheese alternative utilizing dairy proteins from Perfect Day made via microbial fermentation (without cows)…. Read more 
• Alt protein: Israeli start-ups innovate with grasshoppers, fermentation, and ‘plant made’ meatFrom ingredients to finished products, start-ups are innovating to produce the next hottest products in the alternative ingredient space. FoodNavigator hears from three making a splash in Israel’s food tech scene…. Read more

A reader in Norway, Marit Kolby, sent me this one.

First, the press release: “Mushroom consumption may lower risk of depression.”

New research led by Penn State College of Medicine also reveals that these superfoods may benefit a person’s mental health.  Penn State researchers used data on diet and mental health collected from more than 24,000 U.S. adults between 2005 and 2016. They found that people who ate mushrooms had lower odds of having depression.

The study: Mushroom intake and depression: A population-based study using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2005–2016.  Djibril M.Ba. XiangGao, LailaAl-Shaar, Joshua, E.Muscat, Robert B.Beelman, John P.Richie.  Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 294, 1 November 2021, Pages 686-692.

Hypothesis: “We hypothesized that mushroom consumption is associated with a lower risk of depression in American adults.”

Method: Analysis of dietary recall data from NHANES vs. self-reported depression.

Conclusion: “Mushroom consumers had a lower odd of depression. However, we did not observe a dose-response relationship.”

Funding: none.

Declaration of competing interest: none.

Comment: Ordinarily, beyond noting the conditional “may be linked” (which also could be “may not”  and the lack of dose-response, I would not bother to comment on this study except that Marit Kolby wrote:

As usual, the health effects (this time from mushrooms) are greatly exaggerated, especially given the study type and the lack of a dose-response relationship.  One compound in mushrooms suggested to explain the association is ergothioneine. The authors list no conflicts of interest.  But look at the patent list of the author Beelman.

This called for a look at the patent list.  Beelman does indeed hold several patents related to ergothioneine from mushrooms, but most of them are assigned to the Penn State Research Foundation.   This is not unusual for universities, but called for a look at Penn’s State’s policy on faculty intellectual property.

Penn State’s policy on patents requires research faculty to negotiate patent income according to a formula.

1. PSRF [the foundation]: 40%
   Inventor(s): 40%
   Administrative Unit of College: 20%
2. The inventors’ portions of the income are divided according to the contribution percentage that the inventors establish. A memo to establish the percentages to be paid to each invention will be sent to the Inventors before making payment .

Without knowing the details of Beelman’s arrangement with the university, it is difficult to be sure that a conflict of interest exists (he might have turned all the proceeds over to the university), but this situation clearly gives the appearance of a conflict, and an undisclosed one at that.

If professor Beelman is entitled to any percentage of profits from the patents, he has a competing interest and should have disclosed it.

Regardless, his declaration should have acknowledged his patent ownerships, as should the university’s press release.

Are mushrooms a “superfood” as the press release maintains?

Marit Kolby thinks it is more likely that mushrooms are an indicator of usual consumption of whole rather than ultra-processed foods, and points out that a couple of studies have linked ultra-processed foods themselves to depression.

I cannot resist sharing information from a press release I received from sweetspotpr.com about something called The Christmas Cookie Price Index.

This comes from a study computing the cost of cookie ingredients in 60 US cities and 30 countries (People do this things?  Apparently, yes).

The main results:

• The most expensive place to bake Christmas cookies in the US is San Diego, California at $12.40 per batch, followed by Burlington, Vermont ($12.08) and Los Angeles, California ($11.41).
• Charleston, South Carolinais the cheapest place in the US to bake Christmas cookies at $2.23 per batch, followed by Charleston, West Virginia ($2.90) and Des Moines, Iowa ($4.13).
• Sweden is the most expensive country to bake Christmas cookies ($12.83), followed by the Dominican Republic ($11.74),Denmark ($10.97), New Zealand ($10.57), Russia ($9.81) and Switzerland ($9.75).
• Ecuador is the cheapest place to bake Christmas cookies at $3.50 per batch, followed by Poland ($3.62),Spain ($3.80), Germany ($4.04) and Chile ($4.20).

I didn’t think this could wait until Christmas.  I knew you would want to know this in time for Thanksgiving.

And from the National Farmer’s Union,

Enjoy the day and the weekend!

FoodPolitics.com will be back on Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday break.

FoodNavigator-USA, one of the newsletters I subscribe to, has a special edition on edible insects.  

If you want to know what the food insect industry and market look like these days, this is a great place to get the big buggy picture in a hurry:

• Edible insects in focus, part I: CPG 2nd wave focuses on benefits, not bugs… ‘It’s like taking Jell-O and saying, ‘Hey! we’ve got a bunch of ground up cow bones and sugar. You want some?’  Back in 2013/14, no food innovation conference was complete without at least one session promoting edible insects as the next big thing in ‘alternative protein.’ Since then, the field has become littered with the corpses of bug-fueled startups that ran out of cash or energy. But some have stuck around, some have pivoted to petfood or animal feed, and some exciting new players are now emerging on the scene…. Read more
• Edible insects in focus part II: Scale and automation… Aspire Food Group gears up to open world’s largest edible cricket processing facility  Aspire Food Group – which is on a mission to automate and professionalize edible insect farming – aims to start production at a CAD $90m 100,000sqft automated cricket processing facility near London, Ontario, in Q1/Q2 of next year that will produce 10,000 tons of crickets/year in phase one alone, a potential gamechanger in the human food and pet food arena, claims the firm…. Read more
• Edible insects in focus part III: Farming, from Mexico to Ontario to Israel… ‘At this point, if you’re still in business, you definitely know what you’re doing’  “We’ve seen people come and go in the edible insects space, but the people who are still around know what they’re doing,” observes Hector Jimenez at Nutrinsectos in Guadalajara Mexico, who – like many people in this nascent industry – first got the edible insects bug (excuse the pun) after reading a high-profile FAO report* in 2013…. Read more
• Edible Insects in focus part IV. Hargol FoodTech: Grasshoppers, gummies, and patience…Edible insects were always going to be a slow burn in the alternative protein market in Europe and North America, given the ‘ick’ factor and the lack of infrastructure to farm and process them at scale, says Israeli firm Hargol FoodTech. But while the human food market has moved at a frustratingly glacial pace, the industry is professionalizing (as many hobbyists give up), and there are emerging opportunities, particularly in new applications such as gummies and meat alternatives…. Read more
• Edible insects in focus part V. Gym-N-Eat Crickets: ‘My ideal customer is a woman with kids under 10’“  A lot of cricket protein products seem to be bars and powders targeted at 18-35 year old males that are into mountain biking,” observes Shelby Smith, founder of Iowa-based edible insect startup Gym-N-Eat Crickets. “But in my experience, having interacted with thousands of people, women are the key to this market. My ideal customer is a woman with kids under the age of 10.”… Read more  

And how about some migratory locusts?

• European Commission authorizes migratory locust for human consumption:  The European Commission has authorized Locusta migratoria (migratory locust) as a novel food to be placed on the market. This is the second authorization of an insect as a novel food — the first being dried yellow mealworms, which was adopted in July.  The term “migratory locust” refers to the adult Locusta migratoria, an insect… Continue Reading