Search results: MSG

A lot of good stuff is going on about school food these days.  Here are five items.

I.  Universal school meals:

Massachusetts has become the 8^th state to authorize universal school meals for kids in public schools.

Five of the eight states that have passed universal school meal programs did so this year. Minnesota and New Mexico enacted their policies in March, with Vermont following in June,  Michigan in July and now Massachusetts.  [Others are underway; here’s a current list]

II.  The USDA’s Healthy School Meals Incentives

• Lifting Up School Meals
• Resources: Media Toolkit, School Meals Webpage, Support for Schools webpage
• List of the Healthy Meals Incentives small/rural school district grantees

III.  Water-in-schools initiatives

A new study just out: “Effectiveness of a School Drinking Water Promotion and Access Program for Overweight Prevention” finds drinking water associated with healthier weights.

• The US News and World Report article on the study.
• A short video of study findings is available in English and Spanish
• National Drinking Water Alliance article
• Water First resources are available here

IV.  Plant-based school meals

Another study, Plant-Based Trends in California’s School Lunches, produced these findings:

• 68% of districts offer plant-based options daily or weekly, a 54% increase since 2019.
• Plant-based entrees increased by 16% (but account for only 8% of entrées offered).
• Districts are serving higher quality, whole plant-based entrees.

But then things get complicated:

• Processed meat entrees account for 18% of all entrées offered, an increase of 11% since 2019.
• More the half (57%) of all offerings on school menus contain cheese, and some of these are highly processed and include meat (e.g., pepperoni pizza).

California has a School Food Best Practices Fund for purchasing high-quality plant-based offerings, along with locally grown, minimally processed and sustainably grown food.

V.   School Nutrition policies and practices

A new study, “School Nutrition Environment and Services: Policies and Practices That Promote Healthy Eating Among K-12 Students,” says these interventions work:

Providing school nutrition professionals with professional development

• Improving the palatability of school meals
• Offering taste tests
• Pre-slicing fruit
• Providing recess before lunch
• Offering incentives for trying healthier options
• Providing access to drinking water

Comment:  Yes on universal school meals.  Everyone should be working on states to pass this legislation.  As for what works in schools, these interventions are well within the possible.  Get to work!

I don’t care what the arguments are about plant-based meats (see Deena Shanker’s riveting piece in Bloomberg News), they and other plant-based alternatives to animal foods still look like a hot trend to me.   I base this on what pours into my inbox.

One view of the trends:

• Traditional and cultured meat: The trends to look out for in 2023:  As the world emerges into 2023 following a year of perma-crisis, Food Manufacture explores what the coming 12 months have in store for the meat industry and what role cultivated animal proteins have supporting the industry and the growth of plant-based alternatives. Read more

The new products:

• Plant-based product launches for Veganuary 2023:  As the plant-based community celebrates another Veganuary, we take a look at some of the new launches from the sector in this round-up of plant-based new product development…. Read more
• Vegan baby formula: Exploring the plant-based potential in ‘one of the most strictly regulated’ categories: Why does bovine milk dominate the infant formula category, when plant-based is booming in adult nutrition? FoodNavigator speaks with lawyer Jessica Burt from Mills & Reeve, as well as brands Aptamil and Sprout Organic to discuss the plant-based potential in baby formula…. Read more
• How an Israeli start-up developed fish-free tinned tuna with the ‘complete sensory experience’ of taste, texture and smell: In Israel, Vgarden Ltd. has developed what it claims is ‘game-changing’ vegan tinned tuna. Omer Eliav, chief of R&D and Vgarden co-founder runs us though the most challenging aspects of replicating the kitchen staple, fish-free…. Read more

Funding and expansions:

• Businesswire No Meat Factory secures $42 million series B funding: With this latest funding round, No Meat Factory plans to expand its production footprint in North America and build out its manufacturing capabilities to service the global market, increasing access…Read More
• Aqua Cultured Foods begins buildout on fungi-based alt seafood factory: The maker of mycoprotein-based seafood alternatives has begun buildout of a new facility in the US, from where it will produce products for the European market…. Read more

Marketing innovations:

• ‘Plants don’t get the flu…’ Plant-based eggs in the spotlight as egg prices surge: While chicken egg prices were up a staggering 59.9%* year-on-year in December 2022, refrigerated liquid plant-based alternatives have come down in price, with unit sales (+14.2%) outpacing dollar sales (+8.4% to $35.52m) in the year to Dec 4, 2022, according to SPINS data shared with FoodNavigator-USA…. Read more

Even so, the criticisms continue:

• Meat substitutes contain ‘antinutrients’ that inhibit absorption of iron and zinc: ‘The industry needs to think about the nutritional value of these products’: New research out of Sweden has found that while many meat substitutes are high in micronutrients like iron they are often found in a form that cannot be absorbed by the body…. Read more

I am ever fascinated by all this. You too?  Stay tuned.

********

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

The advocacy group, U.S. Right to Know, sent out a press release to announce publication of an article in the British journal, Public Health Nutrition: The corporate capture of the nutrition profession in the USA: the case of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [AND, formerly the American Dietetic Association] accepted millions of dollars from food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness companies, had policies to provide favors in return, and invested in ultra-processed food company stocks, according to a study published today in Public Health Nutrition…The study was produced by public health scholars and U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative public health group that obtained tens of thousands of pages of internal Academy documents through state public records requests.

I’ve been writing about corporate capture of AND (formerly the American Dietetic Association) for years (see below), but this study shocked even me, for two reasons.

• AND holds stock in food companies making ultra-processed foods.

The documents show that the Academy and its foundation invested funds in ultra-processed food companies. The Academy’s investment portfolio in January 2015 included $244,036 in stock holdings in Nestle S.A. and $139,545 in PepsiCo. The Academy foundation’s investment portfolio in June 2013 included $209,472 in stock holdings in Nestle S.A and $125,682 in PepsiCo.

• The list of food companies donating to AND is extraordinarily long; it goes on for pages.

The Academy accepted more than $15 million from corporate and organizational contributors in the years 2011 and 2013-2017. The Academy’s top contributors in 2011 and 2013-2017 were:

• National Dairy Council $1,496,912
• Conagra Inc. $1,414,058
• Abbott Nutrition $1,246,389
• Abbott Laboratories $824,110
• Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation: $801,261
• PepsiCo Inc. $486,335
• Coca-Cola Co. $477,577
• Hershey Co. $368,032
• General Mills Inc. $309,733
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality $296,495
• Aramark Co. $293,051
• Unilever Best Foods $276,791
• Kellogg USA $273,272

The Academy’s response: Inaccuracies in U.S. Right to Know Article

The report is disjointed, mostly opinion, emails taken out of context, picking and choosing items based on words out of Board reports, etc.

The Academy lists facts

• One of the authors has strong financial ties to CrossFit, a staunch opponent to RDN licensure.
• Less than 9% (12 out of 149) of named scholarships, awards and named research grants were established through industry. The funds that are established have input into scholarship criteria, which are approved by the Foundation’s Board. An independent review committee then reviews applications and selects recipients.
• Less than 2% (32 out of 2,812) of donors to the Academy’s Second Century were industry donors.

Additional Academy facts

• Fact: The Academy is NOT influenced by sponsorship money
• Fact: Less than 3% of the Academy’s and the Foundation’s investments are in food companies.
• Fact: The Academy has never changed a position at the request of sponsors.
• Fact: Less than 9% of Academy funding comes from sponsorship.
• Fact: The Foundation’s Fellows program allows participants to serve as catalysts for change and advancement in emerging areas of need for the evolving nutrition and dietetics profession.
• Fact: The Academy and Foundation have always been committed to accountability through transparency and fiduciary responsibility.

Comment

I have been writing about the Academy’s ties with food companies for years.  See, for example,

• March 17, 2008  OK. Time to talk about the American Dietetic Association’s alliances with food companies
• March 13, 2015  Dietitians put seal on Kraft Singles (you can’t make this stuff up)
• March 18, 2015  Dietitians in turmoil over conflicts of interest: it’s about time
• March 1, 2017  The recent Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ election: controversy over non-disclosure of industry ties
• September 9, 2020  Dietetic Association lets Bayer, owner of glyphosate, educate its members about pesticides (but see correction below)
• A chapter in my book, Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat

In my book, I document how food companies exert influence through sponsorship of research and professional societies.  Typically, recipients of industry funding do not recognize the influence of sponsorship and deny it, as we see here.

If AND wants to be taken seriously as an organization devoted to public health, it needs to set strong guidelines for conflicts of interest and adhere to them.  At the moment, this organization gives the appearance of a public relations arm of the food industry.

The same can be said of the American Society of Nutrition, but that’s another story.

Resources

• U.S. Right to Know publishes a fact sheet on AND: available here.
• MedPage: Nutrition Group Has Close Ties to Food, Pharma Companies —
• Washington Post: Group shaping nutrition policy earned millions from junk food makers (I’m quoted in this)

***********

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

Hundreds of reports of illness from eating Lucky Charms cereal have intrigued food safety experts.

The FDA is investigating, but being really cagey about it.

Everybody seems to know that reference number 1064 refers to Lucky Charms cereal.

The FDA has received 529 reports of adverse effects.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler has been following the situation.

Since late 2021, the crowd sourcing website iwaspoisoned.com has received 6,400 reports from people complaining of classic food poisoning symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea after eating Lucky Charms cereal. General Mills, the maker of the cereal, has said that is has investigated the situation and there is no apparent link between the reported illnesses and Lucky Charms.

The Washington Post quotes experts calling for a recall, Bill Marler among them.

Although, there has been no scientific proven link, be it chemical or an allergen, between the several thousand illnesses and Lucky Charms,” Marler said, “my advice to General Mills is to recall the product and reset its trust with the consuming public until more is known.

Is there a link?  Or is this just a matter of people getting sick, remembering they ate this cereal, and putting the two together—even though no cause-and-effect exists.

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

As the WHO/UNICEF report I posted yesterday makes clear, the marketing of infant formula—impossible for new mothers to avoid—interferes with breast feeding and, therefore, is a public health concern.

I posted about the Abbott Labs infant formula recall last week.

Here are some additional items I’ve collected on this topic.

I.  What the marketing looks like.

II.  Study finds no benefit of enriched infant formula on later academic performance: Children who are given nutrient or supplement enriched formula milk as babies do not appear to have higher exam scores as adolescents than those fed with standard formula, suggests a study published by The BMJ, leading researchers to argue renewed regulation is needed to better control infant formula promotional claims…. Read more

III.  IBFAN, the International Baby Foods Action Network, writes that it is:

launching a PETITION calling for an immediate halt to a new study  –  funded by the Gates Foundation and led by researchers from the University of California – that is randomly allocating infant formula to breastfeed in low-birth-weight babies in Uganda and Guinea-Bissau on assumption that this might prevent wasting and stunting.

The study, which has been cleared by ethics committees in the USA, Uganda and Guinea -Bissau – uses purchased ready-to-use infant formula made by Abbott, a US pharmaceutical corporation operating in 160 countries.  Abbott is a major violator of the International Code and is currently at the centre of a media storm in the USA because of contamination in its powdered formula. (NB. The formula used in the trial is liquid Ready-to-Feed).

IV.  IBFAN issued an earlier statement: The baby food industry’s destruction of an irreplaceable natural resource.

The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes was adopted forty years ago by the World Health Assembly, the world’s highest health policy setting body…Today 70% of countries have adopted laws based on the Code, however far too many are limited in scope and full of loopholes as a result of industry interference. As a consequence predatory marketing of baby food products continues throughout the world.  and the global Baby Food Drink Market is forecast to rise more than 30% in 5 years (from $68bn in 2020 to $91.5bn by 2026)….Aside from its crucial role in child survival (more than 800,000 children die each year because they are not breastfed and many more do not reach their full potential, ­­ breastfeeding is the most environmentally friendly way to feed an infant, resulting in zero waste, minimal greenhouse gases, and negligible water footprint. As a renewable natural food resource, mother’s milk makes an important contribution to local food and water security.…the baby food industry lost no time in exploiting the fear and confusion during the pandemic: falsely claiming their products build immunity; that their  ‘donations’ are humanitarian; encouraging the needless separation of mothers and babies and pretending that they are essential ‘partners’ who are genuinely working to address the problems.

V.  The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) assesses nine formula companies’ adherence to WHO recommendations.  Its report is here.

According to its press release,

Despite the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopting ‘The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes’ forty years ago and passing 18 associated resolutions since (collectively referred to as ‘The Code’), the BMS/CF Marketing Index 2021 found that none of the companies it assessed fully abides by The Code’s recommendations and most fall well short.

The summary: 

• Danone retained first place with a score of 68%, up from its 2018 score of 46%
• Nestlé, the market leader in sales value, retained its second place with a score of 57% – also a substantial improvement on its score of 45% in 2018
• KraftHeinz achieved the greatest improvement, ranking third, with a score of 38% compared to in 2018 when it didn’t score at all
• Reckitt (previously RB) substantially improved its BMS Marketing policies which led to a big jump in its score from 10% in 2018 to 32% in 2021 and climbing one place to fourth in the ranking.

VI.  A study: Conflicts of interest are harming maternal and child health: time for scientific journals to end relationships with manufacturers of breast-milk substitutes.  Pereira-Kotze C, et al.  BMJ Global Health. 2022 Feb;7(2):e008002. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008002

The promotion and support of breastfeeding globally is thwarted by the USD $57 billion (and growing) formula industry that engages in overt and covert advertising and promotion as well as extensive political activity to foster policy environments conducive to market growth. This includes health professional financing and engagement through courses, e-learning platforms, sponsorship of conferences and health professional associations and advertising in medical/health journals…journal publishers may consciously, or unconsciously, favour corporations in ways that undermine scientific integrity and editorial independence—even perceived conflicts of interest may tarnish the reputation of scientists, organisations or corporations.  Such conflicts have plagued infant and young child nutrition science for decades.

Comment: As I mentioned yesterday, we now have more than enough evidence to put a stop to this.

As if we don’t have enough trouble with alcohol in this country, it’s now being added to sodas.  In states that allow such things, expect to see them taking up more and more room in supermarket aisles.

The business press is interested in this trend; there is much money to be made on drinks of any kind.

See, for example, Bud Light to Launch Hard Soda.

Bud Light Seltzer Hard Soda will have no sugar or caffeine. Anheuser-Busch describes it as ‘light like a seltzer and bold like soda pop.’ Each can will contain 100 calories and 5% alcohol.

This comes in cola, cherry cola, orange and lemon-lime flavors.

Consumer demand has soared over the past few years for nonalcoholic seltzers such as LaCroix and alcoholic ones such as White Claw that are low on calories and offer just a hint of flavor. Now some consumers are migrating toward stronger flavors, industry experts say, and brewers are trying out new fizzy drinks.

This, then, is about market share.

Lots of other companies are getting into this act.

• From Beer to Hard Seltzer: A Cultural Pivot Finds a New Market:  Boston Beer Co., owner of popular brands like Sam Adams and Dogfish Head, launched its hard seltzer Truly in 2016. CEO Dave Burwick explains the company’s cultural pivot that made it No. 2 in the rapidly growing category.
• No- and low-alcohol category value in key global markets nears $10bn.  Monster enters alcohol category with CANarchy Craft Brewery Collective acquisition:  Monster Beverage Corporation will acquire CANarchy Craft Brewery Collective LLC, a craft beer and hard seltzer company for $330m, providing a springboard for the energy drink giant into the alcoholic beverage category…. Read more
• Coca-Cola, Molson Coors to partner on Simply Spiked Lemonade.  The RTD alcoholic beverage, which is set to hit shelves this summer, is the second drink to be developed by the two companies, following the launch of Topo Chico Hard Seltzer in 2021.
• Dry January movement grows presenting opportunity for non-alcoholic beverage brands:  Many consumers are reporting to take part in Dry January by either abstaining completely or significantly cutting down (‘Damp January’) on their alcohol consumption for the month, presenting year-long opportunities for the non-alcoholic beverage brands, says Morning Consult…. Read more

Given all that, what are we to make of this piece of news?

• Alcohol and COVID-19: Good news for red wine drinkers, but blow for beer boozers?  People who consume red wine between one to more than five glasses a week had a 10 to 17% lower risk in contracting COVID-19, but beer drinkers had a heightened risk, according to a recent study…. Read more
• Here’s the study: COVID-19 Risk Appears to Vary Across Different Alcoholic Beverages.
• Here’s the caveat: Association does not equal causation.  Drinkers of red wine have different lifestyles than beer drinkers, perhaps?
• And here are the study’s sensible conclusions:  The COVID-19 risk appears to vary across different alcoholic beverage subtypes, frequency, and amount…Consumption of beer and cider and spirits and heavy drinking are not recommended during the epidemics. Public health guidance should focus on reducing the risk of COVID-19 by advocating healthy lifestyle habits and preferential policies among consumers of beer and cider and spirits.

Amen.