None of this stuff is on the market yet, which is good or bad depending on how you look on it.  Maybe it’s just me, but these in-the-works products seem weird beyond belief.

Here’s what I’ve collected recently.

• Human milk the next challenge for cellular ag: Why not make human milk in a lab? As improbable and far-fetched — and maybe even blasphemous — as it may seem, scientists are working on doing just that. More than that, some are predicting the final product will be available in three or four years. “Startups are racing to reproduce milk in the lab,”… Continue Reading
• Opalia’s Animal-Free Milk Is Now One Step Closer to Supermarket Shelves:  Canadian foodtech startup hits key milestone on the road to commercialization by eliminating fetal bovine serum from its cell-based milk manufacturing.
• Cultivated meat, cell-cultured meat, lab-grown meat? Comments submitted to USDA over how best to label meat and poultry made from animal cells grown outside of animals reflect the challenge facing US regulators as they seek to nail down nomenclature in this nascent market as startups in the space edge closer to commercialization…. Read more
• The Bloody Secret Behind Lab-Grown Meat: Maybe we can’t have our steak and eat it guilt-free, too.
• Making cultivated meat ‘bleed’ with red algae: ‘Even cell-based meat looks pale; it will need our solution’:  New red microalgae discovered by Israeli start-up Yemoja adds ‘bloody’ juiciness to plant-based burgers and steaks, as well as cultivated meat products…. Read more

Even weirder, but perhaps more palatable, is making protein out of air.

• How Air Protein is making the journey from concept to product: The startup that makes carbon dioxide into a meat analog has been turning science and the need for more sustainability into something co-founder and CEO Lisa Dyson says can feed the world.

And here is a report from Food and Water Watch

• ‘Lab Meat’ Industry is Big Ag in Disguise:  New research shows that plant-based meat props up industrial farm system.

Here’s a report from a House Subcommitteethe on the behavior of the meat packing industry during the Trump Administration.

The key findings:

• The Meatpacking Industry Had Notice of the Acute Risks the Coronavirus Posed to Workers in Meatpacking Plants.
  Meatpacking Companies’ Claims of an Impending Protein Shortage Were Flimsy if Not Outright False.
• Meatpacking Companies Successfully Enlisted Trump USDA Political Appointees to Advocate Against Health Protections for Workers, While Sidelining Career Staff.
• Meatpacking Companies Worked with Trump’s USDA to Force Meatpacking Workers to Stay on the Job Despite Unsafe Conditions.
• Meatpacking Companies Worked with USDA and the White House in an Attempt to Prevent State and Local Health Departments from Regulating Coronavirus Precautions in
  Plants.
• Meatpacking Companies Successfully Lobbied USDA and the White House to Issue an Executive Order Purporting to Insulate Them from State and Local Coronavirus
  Regulations and Liability for Worker Infections and Deaths.

And just to remind you what was at stake, from Leah Douglas’s reporting for the Food and Environment Reporting Network:

Here’s Leah Douglas’s analysis of this report in Reuters, where she now works.

In the meantime, the meat packers deny all of this.

At the end of April, the House Agriculture Committee held hearings on the effects of consolidation in the meat industry.  These were the result of complaints by ranchers that they have been squeezed out by meatpackers and are being forced to sell their animals at prices below their costs.

I’ve written previously about President Biden’s executive order on the meat industry, and about his concerns about lack of competition in that industry.

The hearings followed up on those themes: The CEOs of the four major meat packing companies testified in defense of their practices, and denied colluding on prices.

Should we believe them?

Why does this remind me of the cigarette CEOs denying that their products cause cancer?

If you want more details, here are the links (thanks to Jerry Hagstrom for collecting these at The Hagstrom Report on April 27).  His report is at this link.

• House Agriculture Committee hearing – An examination of price discrepancies, transparency, and alleged unfair practices in cattle markets (video)
• Coy Young, cow/calf producer, Blythedale, Mo.
• Gilles Stockton, cow/calf producer, Grass Range, Mont., on behalf of National Plains Research Council and Western Organization of Research Councils
• Don Schiefelbein, cattle producer and president of National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Kimball, Minn.
• David MacLennan, CEO, Cargill Inc., Wayzata, Minn.
• Tim Schellpeper, CEO, JBS USA Holdings Inc., Greeley, Colo.
• Tim Klein, CEO, National Beef Packing Co. LLC, Kansas City, Mo.
• Donnie King, CEO, Tyson Foods, Springdale, Ark.

The White House says it is taking steps to alleviate the nationwide shortage of infant formula.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi has written a letter to democrats demanding action.

Nationwide shortage of infant formula?

As CBS News explained,

At retailers across the U.S., 40% of the top-selling baby formula products were out of stock as of the week ending April 24…Prices of baby formula, which three-quarters of babies in the U.S. receive within their first six months, have also spiked…Supply-chain snarls related to COVID-19 are contributing to the shortage of formula around the U.S. They include manufacturers having more difficulty procuring key ingredients, packaging hangups and labor shortages…In addition, a major baby formula recall in January exacerbated shortages.

I wrote about the Abbott recall earlier, on February 22 and March 8.

Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich has been following this story closely in Politico.  You can find her articles here.

Her writing is getting action.

For example, Representative Rosa deLauro released a whistleblower report warning about food safety concerns months before infants died and the FDA investigated.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler posted a link to the redacted  whistleblower report.

He says: Mr. Abbott, you are going to jail for manufacturing tainted infant formula.

The legal jargon aside, if you are a producer of food and knowingly or not manufacturer and sell adulterated food, you can (and should) face fines and jail time.  For Abbott, at least 4 kids were sickened and of those two died, from drinking infant formula.

Here is the most recent inspection report at the plant – APPLIED – FOI II – BR Abbott Nutritions- FEI# 1815692 9-2021 EIR.

In the meantime, Bottemiller Evich keeps the focus on how hard this situation is for parents of infants with special nutritional needs.  She also has a Twitter thread on this “slow-moving train wreck.”  She reproduces this graphic from @erindataviz/@datasembly:

The Seattle Times has a particularly useful guide to what to do—and what not to do—if you can’t find the formula you need.

As to what this is really about, see:

The Morning.  This New York Times column attributes this particular shortage to general shortages, monopoly concentration in the formula business, bureaucratic inflexibility, and, most of all, American gerontocracy and overall indifference to the welfare of young children.

A blogger about the politics of monopoly, Matt Stoller, expands on these themes:  baby formula monopoly, FDA collusion, and USDA’s methods for dealing with infant formula in the WIC program (this last alone is reason to read this piece).  In response, the USDA says it is granting states flexibility in apply the WIC rules.

And the Cato Institute has an informative piece on trade restrictions that prevent import of formula from other countries, including the European Union; this pieces also discusses the WIC problem (Government is major buyer; Abbott is major supplier).

Comment: This is a really bad situation that is finally starting to get attention.  Babies are completely dependent on infant formula if they are not being breastfed.  It needs to contain all the right nutrients, but it also needs to be safe.

The FDA says it is taking steps to alleviate the formulat shortage.

Why hasn’t it acted more swiftly?  Perhaps because of what Bottemiller Evich wrote about previously?  See The FDA’s Food Failure.

Basically, we are seeing the results of unregulated monopolies and captured government.  With the most vulnerable members of society—and society’s future—at risk.

Additional links

• Letter from 8 Senators headed by Cory Booker to USDA Secretary Vilsack calling for greater formula competition
• Letter from USDA Secretary Vilsack calling on Abbott to provide rebates for competitive formula
• Politico: Senator Tammy Duckworth calls on the FTC to examine lack of competition in the formula market
• Center for Science in the Public Interest urges policymakers in Washington to deploy additional tools
• Congressional subcommittee to investigate shortages
• Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials to Address Infant Formula Shortage
• Readout of President Biden’s Virtual Meetings with Retailers and Infant Formula Manufacturers
•  Associated Press — Parents swap, sell baby formula
• The New York Times — What Parents Need to Know
• USDA’s Q and A page about options for exchanging Abbott formula for other kinds 
• USDA’s page on the Abbott recall
• USDA’s guidance for keeping infants safe in the midst of formula shortages
• FDA’s details on Abbott product recalls
• CDC’s report on its Cronobacter investigations, now closed
• Wall Street Journal: What caused the baby formula shortage?
• Bill Marler: Abbott caused the infant formula crisi, but the FDA and public health enabled it
• Abbott and FDA agree on pathway to opening Sturgis MI plant
• Abbott denies its formulas were responsible in an 11-tweet Twitter thread

Additional links that came later

• The Washington Post – Biden invokes Defense Production Act to boost baby formula supply
• WhiteHouse.gov – Letter from President Biden to Secretary Xavier Becerra and Secretary Thomas Vilsack on addressing infant formula shortage  
• Fact sheet: President Biden announces new actions to address infant formula shortage
• Memorandum on the delegation of authority under the Defense Production Act to ensure an adequate supply of infant formula

Here’s a good one for my collection:

The Study: TRENDS IN ADDED SUGARS INTAKE AND SOURCES AMONG U.S. CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS AND TEENS USING NHANES 2001-2018.  Laurie Ricciuto,Victor L. Fulgoni III, P. Courtney Gaine, Maria O. Scott, Loretta DiFrancesco. The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 152, Issue 2, February 2022, Pages 568–578, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxab395 

• Background: Over the past 2 decades, there has been an increased emphasis on added sugars intake in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), which has been accompanied by policies and interventions aimed at reducing intake, particularly among children, adolescents, and teens.
  Objectives: The present study provides a comprehensive time-trends analysis of added sugars intakes and contributing sources in the diets of US children, adolescents, and teens …focusing on variations according to sociodemographic factors.
• Methods: Data from 9 consecutive 2-year cycles of the NHANES were combined…Trends were also examined on subsamples stratified by sex, race and ethnicity…income (household poverty income ratio), food assistance, physical activity level, and body weight status.
• Results: From 2001–2018, added sugars intakes decreased significantly…mainly due to significant declines in added sugars from sweetened beverages.
• Conclusions: Declines in added sugars intakes were observed among children, adolescents, and teens…Despite these declines, intakes remain above the DGA recommendation; thus, continued monitoring is warranted.
• Support: The funding for this research was provided by The Sugar Association, Inc. The views expressed in the manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of The Sugar Association, Inc. The Sugar Association, Inc. had no restrictions regarding publication.
• Author Disclosures: LR and LD as independent consultants provide nutrition and regulatory consulting to various food manufacturers, commodity groups and health organizations. VLF III as Vice President of Nutrition Impact, LLC conducts NHANES analyses for numerous members of the food, beverage and dietary supplement industry. PCG and MOS are employed by The Sugar Association, Inc.

University of California Press has just issued its fall catalog and Slow Cooked is on pages 12 and 13.

It includes an interview:

Here’s a description of the book.  Its publication date is October 4, but it can be preordered at any of these sites.

• Amazon
• Barnes & Noble
• Bookshop
• IndieBound
• Powell’s
• UC Press

I am indebted to Politico Morning Agriculture (behind a paywall but try Twitter) for this riveting item: Major Seafood Dealer and Eight Individuals Indicted for International Wildlife Trafficking

The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Crimes Section, unsealed an indictment charging a major seafood distributor and eight of its employees and associates with smuggling, Lacey Act violations and conspiracy to violate the Endangered Species Act, stemming from their trafficking in large volumes of highly imperiled eels.

The mind boggles.

Who knew that eel poaching and smuggling are major wildlife trafficking problems.

With respect to European eels, exporting them has been illegal since 2010.  But wait.  The indictment gets better:

Despite this ban…the defendants conspired to unlawfully smuggle large quantities of live baby European eels out of Europe, to their eel-rearing factory in China. After rearing the baby eels to maturity, defendants’ Chinese facility would then slaughter and process the eels for shipping to the United States, to be sold as sushi products.

It ends with this caveat:  An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I’m due to be called for jury duty.  Is this what I’m in for?

Last month, the UK government announced guidance for the food industry on compliance with its new policies on dealing with foods High in Fat, Sugar, or Salt (HFSS): Restricting promotions of products high in fat, sugar or salt by location and by volume price: implementation guidance.  

The food industry is not happy about these policies.

Kellogg has launched a legal challenge.

Kellogg has launched a legal challenge against the Government’s upcoming restrictions on retail promotions for food and drink high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), claiming the rules unfairly represented breakfast cereals.

On what basis?

The manufacturer argued that the formula used tomeasure the nutritional value of food was wrong when it came to breakfast cereals, as the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) only accounted for portions of dry cereals and not for a bowl of cereal and milk…Breakfast cereals are dehydrated foods, that are intended to absorb milk to make the food more palatable and give the food its intended flavour and texture.  Hardly anyone sits down to a bowl of dry breakfast cereals in the morning – cereals are almost always eaten with milk.

What’s really at stake?

From October this year, new legislation will restrict retail promotion of HFSS products. The changes could lead to a reported loss of 1.1bn per year.

The food industry is also arguing that the new regulations will cause a consumer backlash.

These restrictions might escape public scrutiny, but consumers will get a horrible shock when they wake up one day and find their favourite brands have been ruined by regulation and cost more.  Unless manufacturers fight back, be it in the courts or out in the public square, it’ll be too late to do anything about it.

And that the HFSS regulations won’t do any good.

The soft drink industry, however, sees the regulations as no problem: “The soft drinks category will be affected by new HFSS legislation coming into force in England. But having already done plenty of work in reformulating and innovating for the UK sugar tax, the sector is well placed to turn a challenge into an opportunity.”

What’s all this about?  Here’s a quick review of the HFSS history:

2018: In Chapter 2 of the Childhood Obesity Plan,  the UK government set out its intention to end the promotion of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products by location and by price.  It committed to consult on how this should be implemented.  This was based on evidence that food retail price promotions are widespread and effective at influencing food preferences and purchases (particularly for children), and on previous reports recommending reducing and rebalancing promotions towards healthier food and drink to help prevent obesity in children.

2019: The consultation on restricting the promotion of HFSS products was held.

2020:  The government theld a consultation on technical enforcement of the restrictions.  It announced in Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives, that it would legislate to end promotion of HFSS products by volume (for example, “buy one get one free”) and location both online and in store in England.  It published a formal consultation response.

2021: The government introduced legislation to restrict the promotion of HFSS products by volume price both online and in store in England., based on the nutrient profiling technical guidance 2011.) These regulations will come into force on 1 October 2022.

2022: The new restrictions on HFAA promotion. 

On May 4, I was sent this press release from Tufts University : White House Announces Historic Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.

Today, the Biden-Harris administration announced that it will hold a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this September…This will require bringing together diverse stakeholders, and raising the voices of people with lived experiences in food and nutrition insecurity, hunger, and diet-related disease…

To inform and help achieve these goals…[we]are announcing the formation of the Task Force on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health (Task Force), along with an accompanying Strategy Group on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health to advise the Task Force.

The Task Force brings together a diverse, non-partisan group of stakeholders to inform the goals of the White House Conference. This effort is not organized or endorsed by the White House, but represents an independent effort to convene voices from across the nation to help solve the issues at the heart of the Conference’s focus.

The official White House announcment makes clear that this conference is about both food insecurity and dietary determinants of chronic disease and COVID risk.

Millions of Americans struggle with hunger. Millions more struggle with diet-related diseases—like heart disease and diabetes—which are some of the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.

The toll of hunger and these diseases is not distributed equally, disproportionately impacting underserved communities, including Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans, low-income families, and rural Americans.

This is exciting news.  As I wrote in a previous post, if you are old enought or up on the history of US nutrition policy, you might remember the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health.  This led to the creation and strengthening of many nutrition programs, SNAP among them.

Tufts held a 50th anniversary conference at which I spoke (videos of the talks are here–I was on Panel 3 starting at about 17 minutes in).

And now for the questions.

Mine is this: What will be the balance between the conference focus on food insecurity (not controversial except for the cost) and the greatly needed fbut highly controversial focus on poor diets and their consequences for chronic disease and COVID risk?

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler asks: What about food safety? 

Let this sink in: The CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States.  It is not that I do not think a Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health is important and necessary, but could ya throw a bone to those sickened by foodborne illnesses?

E&E News notes: Biden nutrition conference may fire up climate debate on meat

Of all the food and agriculture interests bound to be represented in the Biden administration’s discussions, meat — and especially beef — may have the biggest messaging challenge, extolling its value in the diet against charges that Americans already eat too much and that raising and sending livestock to market contributes to climate change.

“We look forward to being a part of this important conversation and sharing the science-based, data-driven research regarding the immense environmental and nutritional benefits from cattle and beef production,” the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a producers’ trade group, told E&E News.

I suspect we will have many opportunities to weigh in on this.

I, for one, will be watching the progress on this conference with great interest.  Stay tuned.

Resources

• YouTube – President Biden’s announcement of the conference
• The White House announcement
  Health.gov: Ending Hunger, Improving Nutrition and Physical Activity, and Reducing Diet-Related Diseases and Disparities
• Tufts University – Informing the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health
• Report from the National Commision on Hunger
• Report from Tufts’ 50^th Anniversary Conference
• Tufts’ video of the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health
• CNN’s report on the announcement