Search results: a life in food

A reader, Effie Schultz, sent this one, with a comment that it comes with the longest conflict of interest statement she had ever seen (I’ve noted one that was two pages long in the first item in a post in 2015).

Association of Low- and No-Calorie Sweetened Beverages as a Replacement for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages With Body Weight and Cardiometabolic Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.  McGlynn ND, and 20 other authors.  JAMA Network Open, March 14, 2022. 2022;5(3):e222092.  doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2092

The research question: Are low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages (LNCSBs) as the intended substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) associated with improved body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors similar to water replacement?

The conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that using LNCSBs as an intended substitute for SSBs was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm and had a similar direction of benefit as water substitution. The evidence supports the use of LNCSBs as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs over the moderate term in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes.

Comment: Research on artificial sweeteners remains controversial.  I think we will be arguing forever about their safety and efficacy in helping people lose weight.  Studies with conflict of interest disclosures like the excessively extensive one here do not help resolve the research questions.

I strongly support revealing conflicted interests that might influence any aspect of research design, conduct, and interpretation.  For this study, I would be interested in financial ties or arrangements with companies that might either gain or lose sales or marketing advantages from results showing artificial sweeteners or diet drinks to be harmless or beneficial, as these do.  At issue here is whether financial ties to companies with corporate interests in the outcome of such research bias results or interpretation, consciously or unconsciously.

You have to search through this mess of unnecessary and distracting disclosures to find the ones that matter.  They are there.  You have to search for them.

Much of what is disclosed is irrelevant and, therefore, not helpful.

You may well disagree with that assessment.  Judge for yourself.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Ms McGlynn reported receiving a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-Masters Award during the conduct of the study and being a former employee of Loblaws Companies Limited outside the submitted work. Dr Khan reported receiving grants from CIHR, International Life Science Institute, and National Honey Board outside the submitted work. Dr Chiavaroli reported being a Mitacs Elevate postdoctoral fellow and receiving joint funding from the Government of Canada and the Canadian Sugar Institute. Mr Au-Yeung reported receiving personal fees from Inquis Clinical Research outside the submitted work. Ms Lee reported receiving graduate scholarship from CIHR and the Banting & Best Diabetes Centre at the University of Toronto outside the submitted work. Dr Comelli reported being the Lawson Family Chair in Microbiome Nutrition Research at the Joannah and Brian Lawson Centre for Child Nutrition, University of Toronto, during the conduct of the study and receiving nonfinancial support from Lallemand Health Solutions, donation to research program from Lallemand Health Solutions, personal fees from Danone, sponsored research and collaboration agreement from Ocean Spray, and nonfinancial support from Ocean Spray outside the submitted work. Ms Ahmed reported receiving scholarship from the Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) outside the submitted work. Dr Malik reported receiving personal fees from the City and County of San Francisco, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and World Health Organization outside the submitted work and support from the Canada Research Chairs Program. Dr Hill reported receiving personal fees from General Mills and McCormick Science Institute. Dr Rahelić reported receiving personal fees from the International Sweeteners Association, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Merck, MSD, Salvus, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr Salas-Salvadó reported receiving personal fees from Instituto Danone Spain, nonfinancial support from Danone Institute International, personal fees as director of the World Forum for Nutrition Research and Dissemination from the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, financial support to the institution from Fundación Eroski, and financial support to the institution from Danone outside the submitted work. Dr Kendall reported receiving grants and/or in-kind support from Advanced Food Materials Network, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CIHR, Almond Board of California, Barilla, Canola Council of Canada, International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, Peanut Institute, Pulse Canada, Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, and Unilever; receiving nonfinancial support from General Mills, Kellogg, Loblaw Brands Limited, Oldways Preservation Trust, Quaker Oats (Pepsi-Co), Sun-Maid, White Wave Foods/Danone, International Pasta Organization, California Walnut Commission, Primo, Unico, International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), and Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) outside the submitted work; receiving personal fees from McCormick Science Institute and Lantmannen; and being a member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) Executive Board and Dietary Guidelines, a member of the expert committee of the DNSG Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy, a member of the scientific advisory board of the McCormick Science Institute, a scientific advisor for the International Pasta Organization and Oldways Preservation Trust, a member of the ICQC, an executive board member of the DNSG, and being the director of the Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Foundation. Dr Sievenpiper reported receiving nonfinancial support from DNSG of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), grants from CIHR through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists’ Network (NTN), PSI Graham Farquharson Knowledge Translation Fellowship, Diabetes Canada Clinician Scientist Award, CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and the Canadian Nutrition Society (INMD/CNS) New Investigator Partnership Prize, and Banting & Best Diabetes Centre Sun Life Financial New Investigator Award during the conduct of the study; receiving grants from American Society for Nutrition, International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, National Honey Board (the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey checkoff program), Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS; formerly ILSI North America), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, United Soybean Board (the USDA soy checkoff program), Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), and Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council); receiving personal fees from Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, International Sweeteners Association, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, American Society for Nutrition, INC Nutrition Research and Education Foundation, European Food Safety Authority, Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council, Calorie Control Council, Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre, International Glutamate Technical Committee, Perkins Coie LLP, Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, Danone, Inquis Clinical Research, Soy Nutrition Institute, and European Fruit Juice Association outside the submitted work; serving on the clinical practice guidelines expert committees of Diabetes Canada, EASD, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons; being an unpaid scientific advisor for the Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program and the Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of IAFNS; being a member of the ICQC, executive board member of the DNSG of the EASD, and director of the Toronto Diet, Digestive tract, and Disease Centre (3D) Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Foundation; his spouse is an employee of AB InBev. No other disclosures were reported.

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

I’m thrilled to announce that information about my forthcoming book—out October 4—is now available on the University of California Press website

Preordering options

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

Here’s the official description:

Marion Nestle reflects on her late-in-life career as a world-renowned food politics expert, public health advocate, and a founder of the field of food studies after facing decades of low expectations.

In this engrossing memoir, Marion Nestle reflects on how she achieved late-in-life success as a leading advocate for healthier and more sustainable diets. Slow Cooked recounts of how she built an unparalleled career at a time when few women worked in the sciences, and how she came to recognize and reveal the enormous influence of the food industry on our dietary choices.

By the time Nestle obtained her doctorate in molecular biology, she had been married since the age of nineteen, dropped out of college, worked as a lab technician, divorced, and become a stay-at-home mom with two children. That’s when she got started. Slow Cooked charts her astonishing rise from bench scientist to the pinnacles of academia, as she overcame the barriers and biases facing women of her generation and found her life’s purpose after age fifty. Slow Cooked tells her personal story—one that is deeply relevant to everyone who eats, and anyone who thinks it’s too late to follow a passion.

And here are the amazing back-cover blurbs (for which I am deeply grateful):

• “Marion Nestle is one of my heroes. After reading her riveting memoir, I admire her more than ever. She is one of the most important voices in the food world, and in this book she gets personal for the first time.”—Ruth Reichl, former editor of Gourmet Magazine 
• “Marion Nestle is a national treasure, and now you can learn how she came to be. Just like Nestle herself, this beautiful memoir is thoughtful, generous, unstinting, and deeply committed to learning from the past to build a better world.”—Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System 
• “I have always had such admiration for Marion Nestle: she is one of our nation’s shrewdest thinkers and has transformed the way all of us think about public health, the industrial food industry, nutrition, and the future of food. With this extraordinary book, I see for the first time how she became the clear-eyed, indefatigable warrior that she is. Her radical self-reflection and honesty is deeply moving—and in telling her life’’s story, Marion is forging a path for the next generation of food activists.”—Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, and founder of Chez Panisse restaurant 
• “Marion Nestle is a brilliant, courageous champion of healthy food, social justice, and scientific integrity. This poignant and inspiring book tells us how she came to be that way.”—Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal 
• “Extraordinary! Nestle’s story moves me, heart and soul. I have long admired her leadership in awakening us to the crisis of our corporate-corrupted food system. In this work, however, she offers hope in the capacity of humans to transform obstacles and denigration into opportunity and dignity. She shares a gripping, very personal story that will help us discover our own courage. Just what’s needed now more than ever.”—Frances Moore Lappé, cofounder of Small Planet Institute

I received a press release announcing a June conference to be held by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences.

I had never heard of it.  It says it “is a non-profit organization that catalyzes science for the benefit of public health” and that it “drives, funds, and leads actionable research and elevates food safety and nutritional sciences—all with the ultimate goal of advancing public health.”

That seemed pleasant, if vague, but I was still puzzled.  Nothing on the Institute’s website helped.

This took some digging, but I soon found a news release announcing its formation in February 2021: Leading Scientists Launch Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences to Promote Collaborative Research:

Today marks the establishment of the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), a 501(c)(3) organization focused on catalyzing science for the benefit of public health.

Previously known as the International Life Sciences Institute, North America, IAFNS is building on a proud heritage with a focus on actionable science that promotes nutrition, food safety and public health.

Aha!  ILSI,  The classic industry front group.

ILSI, you may recall, was formed by Coca-Cola.

Within the last few years, lots of articles have appeared describing its lobbying efforts on behalf of the food industry.  Some of these were so blatant that Mars withdrew from in in 2018 and Coca-Cola withdrew in 2021.

I’ve written about ILSI often over the years.  See, for example, this post about IlSI’s effort in China.  Or see this article about scientific integrity (or the lack thereof).

Could all the bad press have anything to do with the name change?

A leopard cannot change its spots, alas.

Tuesday’s Science Times is missing something that’s been in it for 46 years: Jane Brody’s column on Personal Health.

Last week, without fanfare, introduction, drama, or even an explanation, Brody wrote her last column for the Times: Farewell, Readers, It’s Been a Remarkable Ride

A couple of days later, Tara Parker Pope wrote an ode to Brody’s retirement—Nudging Us to Be Better—which ended with statement:

For more than five decades, Jane’s wisdom, wit and writing have lifted us up, motivated us and nudged us to be just a little better than we were before.

Her article was illustrated with this wonderful portrait: I was a New York Times reader when I lived in Boston in the late 1960s.  Brody’s articles about nutrition got me interested in the topic and when the Brandeis Biology department, where I was teaching botany, zoology, and cell biology, offered me the chance to teach a nutrition class I jumped right in, changed careers, and never looked back.

While I was teaching at UCSF, I reviewed Jane Brody’s Nutrition Book for the San Francisco Chronicle.  But I didn’t meet her until I moved to New York University in the late 1980s.

By then, she had been writing the weekly Personal Health column since 1976.

I can’t fathom how she did it.  That’s more than 2000 columns over the years, on an enormous range of health topics.

I have some understanding of what’s involved because I wrote a monthly—not weekly—column for the San Francisco Chronicle from 2008 to 2013, more than 50 altogether.  It was never easy dreaming up topics to write about and the writing took me many hours to do.

How did she do it?  And at that level of breadth and quality?

Science Times has a big hole in it.  That column has been part of my life for decades.  I will miss it.

Lorraine Lewandrowski, a dairy farmer and lawyer who works with small dairies in Herkimer County, NY, is a frequent correspondent.  I am always happy to hear from her because I learn a lot from her and respect her knowledge about small dairies and passion for doing something to help them.  With her permission, here is what she wrote me.

Is there really any hope for the region’s dairy farmers for the future?  It seems that each day we read of NYC officials condemning us and the food we produce, fresh milk, yogurt, soft cheeses, hard cheeses as “ruining the planet” and “bad for health.”  With Mayor Adams having literally  called for a shut down of NY’s dairy farms when he was Brooklyn Borough President, and now calls for VEGAN food as “saving the planet,” why should many of us even go on?

I am working with farmers who are considering suicide, young farmers who tried to farm, but are now locked into a lifetime of debt to pay off the failed farm, and this now….the steady stream of hate directed at us emanating from the city.  Speakers who talk  only “plant based” while trashing all animal ag without any nuance.

Should I just plain tell the people who struggle to live up here on the millions of acres of Upstate grasslands to forget it. Sell it out and go work somewhere.  Or, if you are working a second job to support the farmland taxes as so many do, just sell the land for sprawl or move to another state as several farmers I know have done.

Is it even worth it to try when I don’t see even one urban group standing up for the regional dairy farms?  I’m a lawyer for scores of farmers and hearing the same message from all of them. Why go on?  Personally, I will NEVER work to organize trailers of free milk into NYC again.  Our reward for trying to feed people was a resounding slap in the face from the City and those urban food groups who I had thought supported us upstate.

Lorraine sent the same message to Nevin Cohen, Director of the CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute at the CUNY School of Public Health.  His response to her is also worth reading (also reproduced with permission):

Thanks so much for writing about the challenges facing dairy farmers in NYS. As the descendent of a Catskill dairy farmer – my grandfather owned a small dairy farm in White Lake, NY, and my dad milked cows until he left home for the Army – I empathize with the struggles of today’s dairy farmers.

New York’s farmers, and other farmers throughout the region, have tried to remain profitable in the face of competition from agribusiness, insufficient transportation, processing, and distribution infrastructure, and federal policies that have essentially subsidized large producers. This is particularly true for dairy, a sector that is facing overproduction nationally, consolidation by large corporations operating massive feedlots, and outdated federal policies like the Federal Milk Marketing Order not providing support for small dairies. I understand the enormous financial and emotional strain this places on farmers, and why so many choose to sell their land.

In my opinion, though, the battle is with big ag and USDA, not vegans. Corporate power and an inadequate federal response, combined with development pressures within the region, are far more to blame for falling profits and the pressure farmers face to sell their land than movements to encourage people to eat more fruits and vegetables. Eric Adams’ rhetoric about veganism may appeal to some (though likely an even smaller number since he was “caught” enjoying a fish dinner the other week), but it isn’t the most important factor driving the drop in US milk consumption or over-production by the massive CAFOs out west. A recent USDA study, for example, found that the growth in nut and soy “milks” over the past decades has been much smaller than the decrease in milk consumption. The perceived health halo around non-milk beverages may drive some consumers but other factors, including competition from beverage manufacturers and demographic changes, are at play.

Dairy farmers in the Catskill provide enormous benefits to New York City and the region, not the least of which is protecting our unfiltered drinking water supply from development and providing high quality fresh, local food. We clearly need to focus more on policies to make dairy farming profitable and to make the point that regenerative agriculture with livestock and produce is healthy and resilient. I would be interested in your thoughts about Sen. Gillibrand’s legislation to require changes to the federal milk marketing order, or whether you have other ideas for policy change. The CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute has monthly forums to address important issues like this. We would be interested in hosting a panel to raise awareness of the obstacles farmers face and identify policies that NYC groups can advocate for.

Lorraine Lewandrowski’s response to Nevin Cohen:

In 1939, it was possible to organize upstate dairy farmers to fight the big-3 milk companies that had a stranglehold on the NYC milk market. Today the battle is in Washington and also against multinational companies like Danone, which just last summer terminated its contracts with organic dairy farmers throughout the NY region…Today, Mayor Adams, talks veganism.

In his Daily News Op Ed two years ago, he called for a shut down of our state’s dairy farms, citing a farmer in CA who plowed up the pastures to plant almond groves.  He urged us to “go plant based.”   Over time, I have come to recoil from the word, “VEGAN.”  Vegans have called my office telling my secretary that my throat should be slit.  At the last in-person conference that a group of us farmers attended, vegans defaced and trashed our table, leaving photos of almond milk plastered on our handouts.  It’s even acceptable for leadership to simply call for death to our farms.  A new member of the NYS Senate Agriculture Committee, Jabari Brisport, led a rally in the City calling for Death to Dairy.  No one says a word and he gets a coveted spot on the Senate Ag Committee.

Senator Hinchey tried to talk “equity” to Mayor Adams last week concerning the watershed farmers, but I don’t think he grasped what she was saying when he said he would direct his departments to look at purchasing more “healthy” food from Upstate.  Is one person the arbiter now?

Lastly, Nevin, as to your question on Senator Gillibrand.  For years, farmers have asked for hearings on the milk price formula, but it never happened.  We are at the point where you can drive for miles up here and see nothing but emptied out farms, a bleak landscape.   There will likely be a new look at the formula. Secretary Vilsack has stated that the farm groups need to come up with a unified proposal.  The small scale farms of the Northeast generally feel that the proposal will be crafted for the larger farms of other regions, as we see now with environmental incentives (digesters for the big guys).  But, we are doing our best to input.

My comment on this exchange:

I too am concerned about the plight of upstate New York dairy farmers (and small dairies in general) and about Danone’s abandonment of them.  But when it comes to vegans, I’m with Nevin Cohen: “the battle is with big ag and USDA, not vegans.”

Vegan and vegetarian diets are healthy and I’m all for them if that’s what people want to do.  Personally, I like and eat dairy foods and think they have a place in healthy diets.  I also think small dairies have a place in healthy environments and that it’s the government’s role to make sure they survive in the face of Big Dairy and its discontents.

No question, dairying can be done in ways that are better for cows and better for the environment.  That’s where we need to focus—on policies that will allow farmers to use better practices and to make a living doing so.

I thank Lorraine and Nevin for raising these issues.  I hope this conversation stimulates serious thinking about how policies can best promote healthful diets and protect the environment.

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.

What a concept!  A government cracking down on illegally labeled Kellogg kids’ cereals, lots of them.

The Associated Press report of the matter, widely reproduced, does not say which cereals or show photos of the ones that were seized.

Mexico has seized 380,000 boxes of Corn Flakes, Special K and other Kellogg’s cereals, claiming the boxes had cartoon drawings on them in violation of recently enacted laws aimed at improving children’s diets.

These laws put warning labels on foods and beverage high in calories, sugar, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, artificial sweeteners, and caffeine.  These cover practically all ultra-processed foods.

At the same time, restrictions were placed on the advertising of unhealthy products to children, so that products with warning labels cannot be advertised to children or use cartoon characters.

I’m wondering if some of the seized products violated the law by having cartoons on the package, like this one.

Here is what the boxes of sugary cereals are supposed to look like now.

I want to know more about what got seized.

But how terrific that the Mexican government is taking this public health measure seriously.

Felicidades!

If you want to know what preoccupies the FDA, takes up its time, and keeps it from giving food safety the attention it needs, try this for a burning issue: Revocation of the Standard of Identity for French dressing.

Why would the FDA go to all this bother (and it looks like a lot of bother?

Because it was petitioned to do so by the Association for Dressings and Sauces (ADS).

If, like me, you had never heard of this trade association,

it represents manufacturers of salad dressing, mayonnaise and condiment sauces and suppliers of raw materials, packaging and equipment to this segment of the food industry.

Background: Standards of Identity

These date back to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. They say what a food product must contain, in what proportions, and, sometimes, how it must be manufactured. Foods called things like ‘milk chocolate,’ ‘bread’ and ‘ketchup’ have standards of identity.  Because some of these standards date back 80 years, the FDA has called for comments on modernizing them.

When the FDA extended the comment period, it explained the goals for updating Standards of Identity:

• Protect consumers against economic adulteration;
• Maintain the basic nature, essential characteristics and nutritional integrity of food; and
• Promote industry innovation by giving manufacturers the flexibility to produce healthier foods.

The French Dressing standards

Check this for level of effort over more than 70 years.

In the Federal Register of August 12, 1950 (15 FR 5227), we established a standard of identity for French dressing. We later amended that standard of identity in the Federal Registers of May 10, 1961 (26 FR 4012), February 12, 1964 (29 FR 2382), February 1, 1967 (32 FR 1127 at 1128), May 18, 1971 (36 FR 9010), and November 8, 1974 (39 FR 39554), to allow the use of certain ingredients in French dressing. We also re-designated the French dressing standard of identity as § 169.115 (21 CFR 169.115) (42 FR 14481, March 15, 1977).

The Association for Dressings and Sauces complained—in its January 1998 petition— that nonstandardized pourable salad dressings such as Italian, Ranch, cheese, fruit, and peppercorn, have proliferated as have those reduced in fat, “light,” and fat-free. Because of this variation, and because consumers now expect French dressing to contain tomato-derived ingredients, be reddish-orange color, and sweet, the French dressing standard of identity “no longer serves honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.”

It took more than 20 years, but the FDA now agrees.

Commentary

Ted Kyle of ConscienceHealth.org, who always has thoughtful and interesting things to say about food issues (even when we disagree), asks a good question: Does Anybody Care What’s in French Dressing?  He points out that standards protect the integrity of real as opposed to ultra-processed foods.

The New York Times quotes food historian Ken Albala:

“I can picture the people at Kraft sitting down at a board meeting and the chief marketing guy saying, ‘Do you know the sales of French dressing have dropped off by x and y?’ ” Professor Albala said that the change could allow food companies to revamp their recipes for French dressing as a way to try to boost sales.

 The Times also noted:

In response to the F.D.A.’s announcement of the change on Twitter, some people mocked the agency on Wednesday and said that it should concentrate more on its regulatory role in the coronavirus pandemic. The agency said in the newly published rule that it had received at least one comment as part of its review that questioned its priorities.

My point precisely.