Search results: journal nature

The New York Times front page today has a report of a long-term study at NIH of severe calorie restriction in Rhesus monkeys.  It found that calorie restriction did not extend the monkeys’ lifespan.

I’m not at all surprised.  My co-author and I reviewed the literature on calorie restriction for a chapter in our book, Why Calories Count.

The new study makes news because it contradicts a study done in Wisconsin showing that severe calorie restriction extends life.  Severe means 25% to 30% fewer calories per day that are needed to maintain normal body weight.  I’d call this a starvation diet.

An editorial accompanying the report of the study in Nature attributes the difference between the results of this NIH trial and the Wisconsin study to a difference in dietary composition, suggesting that calories differ in their effects.

Not necessarily.  The Wisconsin study allowed the control monkeys to eat a lot of junk food and they were fatter than normal.  The NIH study restricted calorie intake in its control monkeys so they maintained normal weight and were healthier.  This is the simplest explanation of the difference.

Studies in rats, mice, and many other animals show that calorie restriction extends life.

But what about primates?

Starvation can hardly be good for health.  It causes weight loss, of course, but also a host of physiological and psychological problems.  These were extensively documented in humans during World War II in Ancel Keys’ Starvation studies.

The relationship between BMI and human longevity has been examined in several recent studies, all of which show similar results: Longevity is best associated with BMIs in the range considered normal or slightly overweight.  Above that range—but also below it—mortality increases.  

Being underweight is associated with higher mortality.

A Canadian study provides this example:

And one from the National Cancer Institute provides another:

The bottom line?  Eat a healthy diet and balance calories to maintain a healthy weight within that range.

The hearing on Bloomberg’s soda volume limit takes place today.  I’m traveling and sorry to miss it (I filed comments).

I shouldn’t be surprised but I am stunned by the intensity and depth of soda industry pushback on this, most of it going on and on about the virtues of personal choice, as if container size has nothing to do with the amount people eat.  It does (see below).

In addition to what reporters have been reporting, here’s what I’ve seen personally:

• A phony “grassroots”petition campaign paid for by the soda industry with campaigners paid $30 per hour to collect signatures
• A mailing to my home asking me to protest
• Handout cards
• Subway posters
• Tee shirts
• And highly visible ads on trucks.

And then there’s yesterday’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from Seth Goldman, the “TEA-EO” of Honest Tea:

I challenge the mayor and the New York City Board of Health to seriously consider the impediments that entrepreneurs already face in our efforts to offer lower-calorie drinks. Starting a business and building a challenger brand with modest resources is already a daunting task. The proposed ban would create additional barriers to beverage innovation.

Only one thing wrong with this.  Mr. Goldman must have forgotten to mention that since March 2011, Honest Tea has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Coca-Cola.

Yes, I know the petition has gathered 75,000 signatures or so.  The campaigners and signers should all know better.  See this, for example:

Nature, the prestigious science magazine from Great Britain, has just published a commentary with a provocative title–The toxic truth about sugar—and an even more provocative subtitle: Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol.

The authors, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, are researchers at the University of California medical center in San Francisco (UCSF).

They argue that although tobacco, alcohol and diet are critically important behavioral risk factors in chronic disease, only two of them—tobacco and alcohol—are regulated by governments to protect public health.

Now, they say, it’s time to regulate sugar.  By sugar, they mean sugars plural: sucrose as well as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  Both are about half fructose.

Their rationale?

• Consumption of sugars has tripled over the last 50 years.
• Many people consume as much as 500 calories a day from sugars (average per capita availability in the U.S. is about 400 calories a day)
• High intake of fructose-containing sugars induce metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, insulin resistance), diabetes, and liver damage.
• Sugars have the potential for abuse.
• Sugars have negative effects on society (mediated via obesity).
• Too much of a good thing can be toxic.

Therefore, they argue, societies should intervene and consider the kinds of policies that have proven effective for control of tobacco and alcohol:

• Taxes
• Distribution controls
• Age limits
• Bans from schools
• Licensing requirements
• Zoning ordinances
• Bans on TV commercials
• Labeling added sugars
• Removal of fructose from GRAS status

In a statement that greatly underestimates the situation, they say:

We recognize that societal interven­tion to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders.

But, they conclude:

These simple measures — which have all been on the battleground of American politics — are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It’s time to turn our attention to sugar.

What is one to make of this?  Sugar is a delight, nobody is worried about the fructose in fruit or carrots, and diets can be plenty healthy with a little sugar sprinkled here and there.

The issue is quantity.  Sugars are not a problem, or not nearly as much of a problem, for people who balance calorie intake with expenditure.

Scientists can argue endlessly about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of metabolic dysfunction, but most people would be healthier if they ate less sugar.

The bottom line?  As Corinna Hawkes, the author of numerous reports on worldwide food marketing, wrote me this morning, “there are plenty of reasons for people to consume less sugar without having to worry about whether it’s toxic or not!”

Order from your local independent bookstore or University of California Press or Barnes and Noble or Amazon.com.

Reviews, interviews, and commentary on Why Calories Count

2014

July 26   Review in Science Magazine

2013

September  Review in Health Affairs 2012;31 (9):2150-2151.

September 7 Radio interview with Dr. Don

August 15  Review in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Thomas Weber (in German)

August 1  Review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Barbara Rolls

July 26  Interview with Tami O’Neill for EcoCentric blog

July 13  Interview with Donna Feldman on MyNetDiaryBlog

July 19   Interview about Why Calories Count with Nina Kahori Fallenbaum for Hyphen magazine: “Rice is Nice.”

June 6  KQED’s Forum (radio) Host: Spencer Michels

May 25 Video interview with Linda Watson on HuffPo.

May 21  Radio New Zealand

May 15 Radio interview with Susan Moran

May 14 TV Interview with Linda Watson on Cook for Good

May 9  Jenny Hutt radio

May 9  Candy Sagon on the AARP blog

May 4  Fort Worth Star-Telegram

May 2  Oprah.com

April 26 Review in Eat.Drink.Better

April 26  Susan Albers in the Huffington Post

April 24 Review on StarChildScience

April 20 Review in the Wall Street Journal

April 19  Interview with LifeScript

April 18 Review on The Black Sheep Dances.

April 17  The Page 99 Test and Campaign for the American Reader’s Page 99 of Why Calories Count.

April 16  A review in Serious Eats by Leah Douglas.

March 29: Times Higher Education (U.K.)

People should read this book. They should read it if they are obsessive weight-watchers or serial dieters, or just concerned about what their children eat. They should read it if they work in public health, the food industry, catering or education. And they should certainly read it if, like my colleague who reacted with horror to the title and the idea, they work to counter the “myth of obesity” and are supporters of the “health at any size” movement.

March 29: a blog from Finland (in Finnish)

March 28: Healthy Eating blog

March 26: Lisa Young’s portion teller blog

March 25: Miriam Morgan’s review in the San Francisco Chronicle

March 22: Eleanor West’s interview on Civil Eats.

March 21: Mark Bittman in the New York Times

March 20: Jane Brody in the New York Times

March 15: Nature magazine

Obesity has gone global — as has misinformation about nutrition and food. Nutrition scientists Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim unscramble the confusion with a serving of science. They reveal how calories — those potent but ill-understood measures of heat energy — are really counted, why we need them, how we use them, how many we actually need and why it all sometimes goes so wrong. From ‘secret’ calories to food politics, malnourishment and calorie restriction for health, this is a feast for the mind.

February 1: The Scientist

Nutritional science guru Marion Nestle’s new book, Why Calories Count, seeks to crack open the inscrutable nature of the calorie. Think of the book, cowritten with Cornell University nutritionist and biochemist Malden Nesheim, as a diner’s elemental guide to eating. Nestle and Nesheim deconstruct the calorie—the bane of many a belly in the developed and developing worlds—to its barest components as a humble unit of work or heat before reassembling it and discussing its implications for disease, obesity, politics, and modern marketing.

From the strict chemical definition of a calorie to the 25-year quest by the Center for Science in the Public Interest to require nutritional labels, including calories, on alcoholic beverages, Why Calories Count weaves scientific and social tales into a rich portrait of the American diet and the laws that have shaped it.

By thoroughly burrowing into the meaning and impacts of calories, the authors intend to bestow a more relaxed yet active state of mind upon the reader. “Get organized. Eat less. Move more. Get political,” they suggest. Sounds like the most succinct diet book ever written.

Excerpts from other reviews

From Kirkus Reviews: A strong, rigorous overview of the calorie, its regulation and the politics behind food labeling and marketing.

From Library Journal (see the Barnes and Noble website): Neither a diet nor a weight-loss book, this scholarly, seriously researched work assists readers in evaluating diet claims, formulating strategies to lose, gain, or maintain weight, and learning how to make healthy food choices….and—what will probably be of most interest to the general reader—the role of big business in creating calorie-laden food and why it’s less politically controversial to recommend exercising than cutting back on calories.  

Summary

Calories—too few or too many—are the source of health problems affecting billions of people in today’s globalized world. Although calories are essential to human health and survival, they cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. They are also hard to understand.

This book explains in clear and accessible language what calories are and how they work, both biologically and politically.   It takes readers through issues fundamental to understanding diet and food, weight gain, loss, and obesity, and sorts through the misinformation put forth by food manufacturers and diet program promoters.

Nestle and Nesheim explain the political stakes and show how federal and corporate policies have come together to create an “eat more” environment and give readers the information needed to interpret food labels, evaluate diet claims, and understand evidence as presented in popular media.

Their concluding advice: Get organized. Eat less. Eat better. Move more. Get political.

Blurbs for Why Calories Count:

“We need to understand what ‘empty calories’ are, so that we can feed our children food that is truly nourishing. On this topic, there is no better teacher than Marion Nestle, who writes with meticulousness, clarity and grace.”  —Alice Waters, author of The Art of Simple Food

“If you want to understand what’s wrong with our eating habits, you must understand the central role that calories play.  Nestle and Nesheim are two of the America’s finest nutritionists–and this book explains, clearly and succinctly, why calories count.  It is essential reading not only for people interested in food policy, but for everyone who wants to eat well and be well.” —Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation

“This superbly well-researched and scientifically sound book makes it clear how today’s food environment often overrides physiological regulatory controls of body weight. Why Calories Count is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why so much about food choice lies in the hands of food marketers whose goal is to sell more products, not necessarily in the interests of public health.”  —Dr. David Kessler, author of The End of Overeating

“Thank god authorities like Nestle and Nesheim have teamed up to give us an epic view of a calorie: what it is, where it came from, what it means, how and why we count them. Thank god they’ve managed to decode nutritional science into a commonsense language we can all understand.  And thank god they’ve put calories in their place in a wider cultural and political context to help us think meaningfully about the food our lives depend upon.  I’m grateful.”  —Betty Fussell, author of Raising Steaks

“Calories. We all talk about them—many are even obsessed with them—but what do we really know about them? Not much. Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim’s latest book changes all that, pulling back the curtain on calories and helping us understand them in a whole new light. You’ll never look at a 100-calorie pack of corporate cookies the same way again.” —Anna Lappé, author of Diet for a Hot Planet

 

My mailbox is overflowing with new reports and commentary about obesity.  Here are some examples:

State medical expenses: The journal, Obesity, has an analysis of the cost of obesity to states.  Obesity costs states an additional 7 to 11% in medical expenses. Between 22% (Virginia) and 55% (Rhode Island) of state costs of obesity are paid by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation series on preventing childhood obesity: 

• Food marketing to children: U.S. Businesses Show Mixed Progress on Marketing a Healthy Diet to Children and Adolescents
• Industry self-regulation: Self-Regulation by Food and Beverage Industry Does Little to Reduce Kids’ Exposure to Unhealthy TV Ads
• New York City’s menu labeling regulation: Customers Who Use Menu-Labeling Information Order Fewer Calories
• The ban on sugar-sweetened drinks in Boston schools: Boston High School Students Drinking Fewer Sugary Beverages

From the Campaign to End Obesity:

Obesity Rates Projected to Soar, ABC News, 8.25.11: Will half the U.S. population be obese by 2030? The current trajectory would see 65 million more obese adults, raising the national total to 164 million. Roughly one-third of the U.S. population is currently obese.

In U.S., Obesity Rates Remain Higher Than 20% in All States, Gallup, 8.25.11: Colorado continues to be the state with the lowest obesity rate in the country, at 20.1% in the first half of 2011. West Virginia has the highest obesity rate in January through June 2011, at 34.3%, which is also the highest Gallup has measured for any state since it began tracking obesity rates in 2008.

Reversing the obesity epidemic will take time, LA Times, 8.26.11: The old rule that cutting out or burning 500 calories a day will result in a steady, 1-pound-per-week weight loss doesn’t reflect real people, researchers say. For the typical overweight adult, every 10-calorie-per-day reduction will result in the loss of about 1 pound over three years.

I’ve commented on some of these in previous posts.  If you find the avalanche of studies overwhelming, you are in good company.  I do too, but will summarize my take on the literature in my forthcoming book with Malden Nesheim, Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics, due out from University of California Press in March 2012.  Stay tuned.

I keep getting questions about saturated fat.  Does it really pose a health risk?  If so, how serious a risk?  And isn’t eating real food OK even if it contains saturated fat?  Good questions.  Here are a couple of recent examples:

Reader #1: I think that the idea that saturated fats in meat and dairy are unhealthful is errant, based on correlative – not causative – scientific studies…I propose that instead of demonizing one nutrient over another, we favor whole, high-quality foods of both animal and plant origin…designed by nature (and thousands of years of trial and error) to meet the needs of their respective populations. What do you say?

Reader #2: I wonder how the government can be so focused on low-fat milk. Is that really such a huge problem? Isn’t the bigger problem that the state of NY is telling people pretzels make a healthy snack? Isn’t it soda and cheese doodles and eating every dinner from a box that is the problem? Whole milk, really? I’d appreciate your clarity on this… we are full fat milk and cheese people, and all of this perplexes me.

I can understand why anyone might be confused about saturated fat.  Food fats are complicated and it helps to be a biochemist (as I once was) to sort out the issues related to degree of saturation and whether the omegas are 3, 6, or 9 (I explain all this in the chapter on fats and in an appendix to What to Eat).

And yes, the science is complex and sometimes seems contradictory but scientific committees for the past 50 years have concluded one after another that substituting other kinds of fatty acids for saturated fatty acids would reduce levels of blood cholesterol and the risk for coronary heart disease.

And no, those scientists cannot have all be delusional or paid off by the meat or dairy industries.  They—like scientists today—mostly call the science the way they see it.

What makes the research especially hard to sort out is that all food fats—no exceptions—are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (just the proportions differ), that some saturated fatty acids raise blood cholesterol levels more than others do, and that one kind—stearic acid—seems neutral with respect to blood cholesterol.

But overall, the vast majority of expert committees typically conclude that we would reduce our heart disease risks if we kept intake of saturated fat below 10% of calories, and preferably at or below 7%.   On average, Americans consume 11-12% of calories from saturated fat, which doesn’t sound too far off but the average means that many people consume much more.

As is often the case with studies of single nutrients, research sometimes comes to different conclusions.  Several studies—all quite well done—have appeared just in the last year or so.

One of these is a meta-analysis (a review of multiple studies). It concludes:

…there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] or CVD [cardiovascular disease]. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat [my emphasis].

What saturated fat gets replaced with is the subject of three other well conducted studies that come to a different—the mainstream—conclusion.  One, another recent meta-analysis, confirms decades of previous observations (sorry about the annoying abbreviations):

These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA [polyunsaturated fatty acids] in place of SFA [saturated fatty acids] reduces CHD events in RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. This suggests that rather than trying to lower PUFA consumption, a shift toward greater population PUFA consumption in place of SFA would significantly reduce rates of CHD.

Translation: replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats would be healthier.

Another meta-analysis comes to the same conclusion:

The associations suggest that replacing SFAs with PUFAs rather than MUFAs [monounsaturated fatty acids] or carbohydrates prevents CHD over a wide range of intakes.

A very recent consensus statement concludes:

the evidence from epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies is consistent in finding that the risk of CHD is reduced when SFAs are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). In populations who consume a Western diet, the replacement of 1% of energy from SFAs with PUFAs lowers LDL cholesterol [the “bad” kind] and is likely to produce a reduction in CHD incidence of ≥2–3%. No clear benefit of substituting carbohydrates for SFAs has been shown, although there might be a benefit if the carbohydrate is unrefined and has a low glycemic index.

The advisory committee to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reviewed this and other research relating saturated fatty acids to heart disease risk and concluded:

Cholesterol-raising SFAs, considered SFA minus stearic acid…down-regulate the low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor by increasing intracellular cholesterol pools and decreasing LDL cholesterol uptake by the liver.

The committee’s research review addressed the question, “What is the Effect of Saturated Fat Intake on Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Disease or Type 2 Diabetes, Including Effects on Intermediate Markers such as Serum Lipid and Lipoprotein Levels?”  It judged the evidence strong

that intake of dietary SFA is positively associated with intermediate markers and end point health outcomes for two distinct metabolic pathways:

1) increased serum total and LDL cholesterol and increased risk of CVD and

2) increased markers of insulin resistance and increased risk of T2D [type-2 diabetes]. Conversely, decreased SFA intake improves measures of both CVD and T2D risk.

The evidence shows that 5 percent energy decrease in SFA, replaced by MUFA or PUFA, decreases risk of CVD and T2D in healthy adults and improves insulin responsiveness in insulin resistant and T2D individuals.

How much saturated fat might increase the risk of heart disease or type-2 diabetes depends on how much you eat as well as what you eat.

What to do to reduce your dietary risks for heart disease?  Take a look at the top 15 sources of saturated fats in U.S. diets:

• Regular cheese
• Pizza
• Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, pies, pop-tarts, donuts, etc)
• Dairy desserts
• Chicken and chicken mixed dishes (e.g. fingers)
• Sausage, franks, bacon, and ribs
• Burgers
• Mexican mixed dishes
• Beef and beef mixed dishes
• Reduced fat (not skim) milk
• Pasta and pasta dishes
• Whole milk
• Eggs and egg mixed dishes
• Candy
• Butter
• Potato/corn/other chips
• Nuts/seeds and nut/seed mixed dishes
• Fried white potatoes

Explanation: These foods do not necessarily have the most saturated fat.  If the list surprises you, recall that all food fats have some saturated fats.  These foods are leading sources because they contain some saturated fat and many Americans eat them.

It is surely no coincidence that these foods are also among the leading sources of calories in U.S. diets.  The health effects of diets, let me repeat, have to do with quantity as well as quality.

If you do not habitually eat most of the foods on this list, and are not gaining weight, saturated fatty acids are much less likely to be a problem for you.

And just because saturated fats raise the risk of heart disease does not mean they are poisons.   Eat fats.  Just not too much.

 

 

 

In the current issue of the online Journal of the World Public Health Nutrition Association (of which I am a charter member), Carlos Monteiro, a professor at the University of São Paulo writes “The big issue is ultra-processing.”  Because his Commentary is so lengthy, I am taking the liberty of extracting pieces from it, not always in the order presented.

The most important factor now, when considering food, nutrition and public health, is not nutrients, and is not foods, so much as what is done to foodstuffs and the nutrients originally contained in them, before they are purchased and consumed. That is to say, the big issue is food processing – or, to be more precise, the nature, extent and purpose of processing, and what happens to food and to us as a result of processing.

Monteiro makes it clear that all foods and drinks are processed to some extent.  Fresh apples are washed and, sometimes, waxed.  Drinking water is filtered.  Instead, he distinguishes three types of processing, depending on their nature, extent, and purpose:

• Type 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods that do not change the nutritional properties of the food.
• Type 2: Processed culinary or food industry ingredients such as oils, fats, sugar and sweeteners, flours, starches, and salt.  These are depleted of nutrients and provide little beyond calories (except for salt, which has no calories).
• Type 3: Ultra-processed products that combine Type 2 ingredients (and, rarely, traces of Type 1).

The purpose of Type 3 ultra-processing is to create:

durable, accessible, convenient, attractive, ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat products. Such ultra-processed products are formulated to reduce microbial deterioration (‘long shelf life’), to be transportable for long distances, to be extremely palatable (‘high organoleptic quality’) and often to be habit-forming. Typically they are designed to be consumed anywhere – in fast-food establishments, at home in place of domestically prepared and cooked food, and while watching television, at a desk or elsewhere at work, in the street, and while driving.

Monteiro argues: “the rapid rise in consumption of ultra-processed food and drink products, especially since the 1980s, is the main dietary cause of the concurrent rapid rise in obesity and related diseases throughout the world.”

As evidence, he notes that ultra-processed products as a group are:

• Much more energy-dense than unprocessed and minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients taken together.
• [Contain] oils, solid fats, sugars, salt, flours, starches [that] make them excessive in total fat, saturated or trans-fats, sugar and sodium, and short of micronutrients and other bioactive compounds, and of dietary fiber.
• Relatively or even absolutely cheaper to manufacture, and sometimes – not always – relatively cheaper to buy.
• Often manufactured in increasingly supersized packages and portions at discounted prices with no loss to the manufacturer.
• Available in ‘convenience’ stores and other outlets often open late or even 24/7, and vended in machines placed in streets, gas stations, hospitals, schools and many other locations.
• The main business of transnational and big national catering chains, whose outlets are also often open until late at night, and whose products are designed to be consumed also in the street, while working or driving, or watching television.
• Promoted by lightly regulated or practically unregulated advertising that identifies fast and convenience food, soft drinks and other ultra-processed products as a necessary and integral part of the good life, and even, when the products are ‘fortified’ with micronutrients, as essential to the growth, health and well-being of children.

Overall, he says:

Their high energy density, hyper-palatability, their marketing in large and super-sizes, and aggressive and sophisticated advertising, all undermine the normal processes of appetite control, cause over-consumption, and therefore cause obesity, and diseases associated with obesity.

His groups the main points of his argument in three theses:

• Diets mainly made up from combinations of processed ingredients and unprocessed and minimally processed foods, are superior to diets including substantial amounts of ultra-processed products.
• Almost all types of ultra-processed product, including those advertised as ‘light’, ‘premium’, supplemented, ‘fortified’, or healthy in other ways, are intrinsically unhealthy.
• Significant improvement and maintenance of public health always requires the use of law. The swamping of food systems by ultra-processed products can be controlled and prevented only by statutory regulation.

Lest there be any confusion about the significance of this proposal for public health nutrition, an accompanying editorial (unsigned but assumed to be by Geoffrey Cannon) poses a serious challenge: “Nutrition science: time to start again.”

This editorial is about the significance of food processing, and in particular of ‘ultra-processed’ food and drink products. It is also about the nature, purpose, scope and value of nutrition science, which as conventionally taught and practiced, is now widely perceived to have run into the buffers or, to change metaphor, to have painted itself into a corner.

The editorial argues that nutritionists’ focus on nutrients, rather than foods, has led to the assumption that if foods contain the same nutrients, they are the same—even though it is never possible to replicate the nutritional content of foods because too much about their chemical composition is still unknown.

This notion is an exquisite combination of stupidity and arrogance, or else of intelligence and cunning. For a start, similar results can only be of those chemical constituents that are at the time known, and actually measured.

These are important ideas, well worth consideration and debate.  I am struck by their relevance to the latest survey of soft drink availability in American elementary schools.  Despite the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and the voluntary actions of Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola, the availability of soft drinks to young school children increased from 49.% to 61% just in the year from 2006-07 to 2008-09.  Soft drinks, in Monteiro’s terms, are ultra-processed.  Doing something about them requires statutory regulation.

Consideration of the effects of ultra-processing might help us look at what we feed our kids in a more constructive way.  This is important work.

Addition: I should have mentioned that Monteiro’s approach is consistent with that of the people (including me) who worked with the Strategic Alliance in Oakland, CA to write Setting the Record Straight: Nutritionists and Health Professionals ” Define Healthful Food.

The Alliance is California’s network of food and activity advocates, we’ve developed a definition of healthy food that asserts that truly healthful food comes from a food system where food is produced, processed, transported, and marketed in ways that are environmentally sound, sustainable, and just.

If you agree with Setting the Record Straight, you can endorse it on the Strategic Alliance’s website.

This book has its own Facebook Page (Feed Your Pet Right) on which Mal Nesheim and I deal with current issues about pet food, answer questions, and respond to comments.

Order from your local independent bookstore or Free Press/Simon and Schuster or Amazon or Borders or Barnes & Noble or IndieBound.

Media Interviews and book reviews [scroll all the way down to read review examples]

September/October 2010 Review in The Bark magazine

September 2010 Pet Food Industry review by Packaged Facts

August 18, 2010 Jill Richardson reviews the book on AlterNet

August 18, 2010 Jill Richardson blogs about the book

July 28, 2010 Interview with Amy Lieberman on Zootoo.com

July 17, 2010 Radio interview with Evan Kleinman on Good Food

June 28, 2010 Podcast interview with Tracie Hotchner’s “Authors on Animals”June 25, 2010 DailyAdvance.com review by Vicky Hagmeister.

June 23, 2010 San Francisco Chronicle Q and A with Meridith May.  Great photos!

June 10, 2010 Corby Kummer comments on the book on the Atlantic Food Channel.

June 8, 2010 Christie Keith’s review for the San Francisco Chronicle online

June 5, 2010 The San Francisco Chronicle online Tails of the City reviews the book

June 1, 2010 Jane Brody writes about the book in her Personal Health column

May 22, 2010 Live blogging from Omnivore Books on PetConnection by Christie Keith

May 20, 2010 Interview with Joyce Slayton on Chow.com

May 14, 2010 Good Morning America with JuJu Chang

May 13, 2010 Interview with Kerry Trueman, Eating Liberally, Mudroom

May 13, 2010 Brian Lehrer NPR radio

May 13, 2010 St Louis Post-Dispatch review

May 12, 2010: Diane Rehm Show , NPR radio

May 11, 2010: Time.com Q and A (print)

Summary

Feed Your Pet Right is an entertaining and informative examination of the booming pet food industry—its history, constituent companies, products, and marketing practices—written by two experts who took an objective look at the science behind pet food industry practices and claims. The book should be of interest to anyone who cares about how businesses function in today’s market economy but it especially aims to give pet owners the facts they need to decide for themselves how best to feed their cats or dogs.

The result of extensive research by experts in animal and human nutrition, the book covers the range of pet food products available, analyzes the ingredients in those products, reveals how and why pet food labels look the way they do, and explains how to read and decode the information and health claims on those labels. With this information, pet owners can better evaluate the quality and safety of what they are buying for their cats and dogs.

The authors make no attempt to dictate how pet owners should feed their cats and dogs. Instead, Feed Your Pet Right provides a roadmap to providing healthful diets for cats and dogs in ways that fit the great range of pet owners’ personal beliefs, value systems, and lifestyle choices.

The book also explains how pet foods are and are not regulated, how pet food companies influence government oversight and veterinary training and research, and how ethical considerations affect pet food research and product development. The book concludes with specific recommendations not only for pet owners, but also for the pet food industry, government regulators, and veterinarians.

Co-author: Dr. Malden Nesheim:

Malden Nesheim was born in Rochelle, Illinois. He earned a BS degree in Agricultural Science (1953) and an MS degree in Animal Nutrition (1954) from the University of Illinois and the Ph.D. degree in Nutrition (1959) from Cornell University.

Nesheim joined the Cornell faculty in 1959. In 1974 he was named Professor of Nutrition and Director of the newly formed Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell, a post which he held until the summer of 1987 when he was appointed Vice President for Planning and Budgeting. In 1989 he was appointed Provost of Cornell University. In that position, he was the chief academic officer of Cornell University responsible for oversight of all programs on the Ithaca campus. In 1995, he was named Provost Emeritus and became professor of Nutrition Emeritus in 1997.

Nesheim received the American Institute of Nutrition’s Conrad A. Elvehjem Award for public service, was elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Fellow of the American Society of Nutritional Sciences. He has served as President of the American Institute of Nutrition and on several review panels for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Agriculture. He chaired the NIH Nutrition Study Section from 1983-1986, and was a member of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine for nine years. He chaired the 1990 joint USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. In 1995 he was appointed Chair of a Presidential Commission on Dietary Supplement Labels. He finished his term as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Pan American Health and Education Foundation in 2008.

How we came to write this book:

The idea for this book originated as an extension of Marion Nestle’s book, What to Eat, which addressed common questions about human food choices using supermarkets as an organizing principle. The book did not cover the pet food aisle, which in most supermarkets is extensive and loaded with products whose labels differ greatly from those on foods for humans and are indecipherable to most people. We were curious to know what those products were and what their labels meant. What to Eat is a guide to how to think about human food choices. Feed Your Pet Right is a guide to how to think about food choices for cats and dogs.

Early comments

From Dr. David Fraser, former dean of the Veterinary College at the University of Sydney:

I have at last finished reading the manuscript of your book…Your book is mind blowingly excellent!! It is brilliant in every way. It is comprehensive in scope. It is so clearly impartial – free of any hidden influence on the writers. The style of writing is extremely attractive and should make this book accessible to any reader regardless of their knowledge level…The book of course is written for the USA. Nevertheless, I shall be recommending that my veterinary students read it…I am amazed at the range of issues that you covered. Together they give the most complete understanding of commercial pet foods that could possibly be created…your recommendations and criticisms are all highly relevant to the Australian situation.

Reviews in print

Library Journal, April 1, 2010:

Nestle, Marion & Malden C. Nesheim. Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. Free Pr: S. & S. May 2010. c.320p. illus. index. ISBN 978-1-4391-6642-0. pap. $18. PETS

Dog and cat owners encounter a dizzying array of choices and confusing labels when shopping for pet foods in supermarkets. They will welcome the information Nestle (nutrition, New York Univ.; Pet Food Politics) and Nesheim (nutrition, emeritus, Cornell Univ.) obtained from their research and firsthand experience. Readers learn what pets are supposed to eat (dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores) and the scientific standards and government regulations that led to the development of commercial pet food. Owners are guided through the many food choices, including dry, canned, wet, and semimoist foods; products called “premium,” “all natural,” “prescription diet,” and “hairball control”; and more unconventional diets, like raw, vegetarian, and home cooked. After discussing various foods and nutrients, they conclude with specific and sensible recommendations for pet owners, the industry, and the government. VERDICT Filled with useful information, this well-written guide is the pet nutrition counterpart to Nestle’s human nutrition guide, What To Eat. Recommended for all pet owners.—Eva Lautemann, Georgia Perimeter Coll. Lib., Clarkston

Tulsa World, May 9, 2010

Surprising bits about kibble, by Kim Brown, World Scene Writer

We’re a culture obsessed with food, so why not be that way about pet food?

The answer is what authors Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim search for in their new book, “Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat,” (Simon & Schuster, $16.99).

From breaking down pet food labels to detailing the many nutrition plans for your dog or cat, the authors dig deep into the $40 billion a year pet industry and learn that there are no definitive answers.

But they first take us through history to learn what our domestic animals used to eat, and how it compares with the foods we feed them today.

Not only do they tackle the commercial pet food industry, but the authors also look inside the natural and organic product claims on some specialty, or more expensive, pet food products.

Some of Nestle and Nesheim’s research surprised them, particularly that they found was no single diet to be superior.

“The books that are out there tend to cite every bit of research or experience they can muster to argue that you must feed your pet only one kind of diet — only commercial pet food, only one or another alternative pet food, only meat, only grains and vegetables, only raw foods, or only home-cooked foods. Humans don’t eat only one way. Pets don’t need to either. Any or all of those methods, singly or together, can promote excellent health in a dog or cat,” they write.

In fact, they find that commercial pet food is “adequate and appropriate” for many pets.

“We found no evidence that these foods routinely cause nutrient deficiencies or other health problems or shorten pets’ lives ” they write.

However, they also lament that there is no “real research” to tell if pets are living longer lives now than before.

Cape Cod Times, May 9, 2010, Bookshelf, by Melanie Lauwers

One of the hottest topics going is how we feed ourselves in the modern world — where our food comes from, how it’s processed and whether we get the best possible nutrition from our diet. But what about our pets? We spend millions of dollars each year on wet and dry food, treats and supplements, and truthfully, how much do we know about those products? And how do we know they’re right for our pets?

Expert nutritionist Marion Nestle of New York University and Cornell University professor emeritus Malden Nesheim explain what pets used to eat, what they eat now and what they actually need in their diet to stay healthy and happy. Included are analyses of pet food products and recommendations for owners, the pet food industry and regulators. There’s more than plain old kibble in this pet food encyclopedia.