Search results: a life in food

I can hardly keep up with what’s happening with plant-based and cultured-meat products.  Here’s my latest collection from various newsletters and other sources.  Take a look at the ones that interest you.  This is a quick way to get a broad picture of where this industry is headed and how these products are viewed.

Bottom line: meat alternatives are big business.

• Your questions about fake meat, lab grown meat and clean meat answered.  Let’s start off this collection with an explanation of the issues from my former student Maggie Tauranac, now working at the Grace Foundation, and writing in Edible Manhattan. She says: Until we know more about the full impact of these products on humans and on the planet, the jury is still out on whether they will be celebrated, feared, avoided or ignored.
• Vandana Shiva’s take: Fake Food, Fake Meat: Big Food’s Desperate Attempt to Further the Industrialisation of Food:  The promotion of fake foods seems to have more to do with giving new life to failing GMO agriculture and the Junk Food Industry, and the threat from the rising consciousness that organic, local, fresh food is real food: that which regenerates the planet and our health.
• Lab-grown insect cells could be the planet-friendly “meat” of the future, according to Grist.
• Food Navigator reports on a survey by the International Food Information Council asking Americans whether almond milk contains cow’s milk.  16% are not sure, 9% say yes, and 75%, fortunately, say no.
• The New Food Economy reports that Tyson’s is getting into the plant-based meat product business.  Perdue Farms, Nestlé and Hormel Foods also plan to enter this market.  But note: Critics complain that the products are not really plant-based.
• $16B invested in plant-based and cell-cultured meat since 2009  The Good Food Institute noted in two reports that changing consumer attitudes and the boost in sales of meat alternatives are driving these funds.
• Impossible Burgers run short as manufacturer ‘spares no expense’ to double supply: Statements from the company confirm its production capacity and a steep incline in demand has caused the shortage, and sourcing ingredients is not the issue.
• From microalgae to 3D printed steak: ‘The future is meatless’  As the sustainability agenda rises in the food industry, innovators are increasingly looking at ways of swapping out meat for a plant-based counterpart. FoodNavigator explores three innovations in the sector: microalgae omega-3, scalable mycoprotein, and 3D printed steak… Read
• What does ‘plant-based eating’ really mean, and how can firms tap into the trend?  Next-generation meat, egg, and dairy alternatives have garnered a huge amount of press (and investment), but there are many other ways for brands to meet demand for plant-based foods, says a report from consultancy New Nutrition Business querying whether brands such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are overhyped and overvalued… Read
• Analysts: Cell-cultured and plant-based meat could be 10% of the market by 2029:  While wide distribution of lab-grown meat is likely years away, Barclays says plant-based products have garnered favorable consumer response and both sectors could be worth $140 billion.
• Plant-based and cell-cultured ‘meat’ labeling under attack in 25 states: Bills to prevent plant-based and/or cell-cultured products from being labeled as ‘meat’ or ‘beef’ have been introduced in 25 US states, and have already passed in states including Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, North Dakota and South Dakota. But what, if anything, can opponents do to stop them?.. Read
• Water lentil milk… a new option in the plant-based dairy case?  A new option could soon be available in the burgeoning plant-based milk category utilizing the protein-packed ‘water lentil,’ a free-floating seed-producing micro aquatic plant (also known as duckweed and Lemna/Lemnaceae)… Read
• After exiting Beyond Meat, how will Tyson do with its own plant-based products?  In an earnings call this week, CEO Noel White said the company’s reach will allow it to move quickly into the marketplace this summer.
• Research article from Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems: Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle.   
• Beyond the burger: A look at the building blocks used to make better plant-based meat: As consumers hunger for options in the red-hot space, scientists are deepening their understanding of how to make the products even more like their animal-based alternatives.

I rarely review food movies, but this is an especially good one, beautifully filmed, inspiring, yet raw enough to ring true: The Biggest Little Farm.

I saw this in Ithaca’s Cinemopolis last week along with about ten other people.  There should have been more.  It’s well worth seeing.

The film is about a young couple (John Chester is a filmmaker, Molly Chester is a professional cook), with a dream to farm in a way that promotes biodiversity.  They know nothing about farming but somehow acquire 200 acres of barren, parched land an hour north of Los Angeles.

Well advised to apply principles of regenerative agriculture, they transform the soil and turn the property into a lush orchard in served by a Noah’s ark of animals, chickens, ducks—and endlessly invasive wildlife.

The film, conceived, directed, and gorgeously filmed by John Chester, develops its dramatic tension and emotional depth from the realities of making this farm project work.  Nature is indeed red in tooth and claw; coyotes do kill chickens every chance they get; and beloved pigs do get sick.

By year seven, the farm is stunningly beautiful, fully regenerated, ecologically balanced, and productive.

This is vastly inspiring; farming as it ought to be done is not easy, but it is possible and worth doing.

See this film and decide for yourself whether you find it as charming as I did.

With that said, I walked out of the movie with one burning question: What was the business model?

The farm looks expensive, very expensive.  How did the Chesters get the money to do this and survive the years before they could sell anything, especially since 70% of the early fruit crops were consumed by birds?

The film mentions an investor but provides no details.  I want them.

The biggest barrier to young people going into farming is the cost—of land, equipment, labor, plants, animals.  How did this couple, who had no money to start with, finance this farm?

Other people who want to do this kind of farming need to know this.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, research is pouring in (see below) about the benefits of avoiding consumption of ultra-processed foods, those that are more than minimally processed and contain added sources of calories, salt, and color, flavor, and texture additives.

Since ultra-processed foods are among the most profitable, the makers of such foods wish this term would disappear.  Hence, this paper.

Julie Miller Jones.  Food processing: criteria for dietary guidance and public health? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2019), 78,4 –18

Conclusions: “No studies or β-testing show that consumers can operationalise NOVA’s [the non-acronym name given to this food classification system] definitions and categories to choose nutrient-rich foods, to eschew foods of low nutritional quality and improve diets and health outcomes. Further, there are significant concerns about NOVA’s actionability and practicality for various lifestyles, skillsets and resource availability.

Financial Support: The staff from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, ASN [American Society for Nutrition], IFT [Institute of Food Technologists] and IFIC [International Food Information Council] assisted with the planning and facilitation of the conference calls and with the review and editing of the manuscript. No specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was received for the development of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: Julie Miller Jones is a scientific advisor to the Grains Food Foundation, The Healthy Grains Institute (Canada), Quaker Oats Advisory Board, and the Campbell Soup Company Plant and Health Advisory Board. She has written papers of given speeches for Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico), Cranberry Institute, and Tate and Lyle.

Comment: What most disturbs me about this review is its sponsorship by two major U.S. nutrition societies, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and ASN, whose first goal ought to be promoting public health.  Instead, they speak here for the food industry [I devote chapters to both organizations in Unsavory Truth].

The other two groups would be expected to support food-industry marketing objectives.  The IFT is the trade association for food scientists; it works for the food industry.  The IFIC Foundation positions itself as “dedicated to the mission of effectively communicating science-based information on health, nutrition and food safety for the public good” but is sponsored by food companies; this makes it a front group for the food industry.

Two more papers finding benefits for the ultra-processed concept just appeared in the BMJ.  These are discussed and cited here.

Nutrition journals sometimes publish supplements on specific topics.  These are paid for by sponsors.  The papers listed here are part of a supplement to the May 2019 issue of Advances in Nutrition.

The sponsor?  As stated in the introductory article,

This supplement was sponsored by the Interprofessional Dairy Organization (INLAC), Spain. The sponsor had no role in the design of the studies included in the supplement; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscripts; or in the decision to publish the results. Publication costs for this supplement were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not attributable to the sponsors or the publisher, Editor, or Editorial Board of Advances in Nutrition.

Author disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The authors may think they have no conflicted interests, but as I discuss in Unsavory Truth, the effects of industry funding often are unconscious, unintentional, and unrecognized.

As is typical of industry-sponsored studies, the results of these dairy-funded studies are predictable.  From looking at these titles, you can predict that they will show dairy foods to have positive effects on pregnancy, lactation, child growth, bone density, and cognition, and no negative effects on mortality, metabolism, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer.

The overall conclusion is also predictable:

In conclusion, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the present supplement support adequate milk consumption at various stages of life and in the prevention/control of various noncommunicable chronic diseases.

If the dairy industry wants the public to believe these results, it should not be paying for them. 

Supplement—Role of Milk and Dairy Products in Health and Prevention of Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases: A Series of Systematic Reviews

• Introduction and Executive Summary of the Supplement, Role of Milk and Dairy Products in Health and Prevention of Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases: A Series of Systematic Reviews.  Ángel Gil ; Rosa M Ortega
• Effects of Milk and Dairy Product Consumption on Pregnancy and Lactation Outcomes: A Systematic Review.  María Achón; Natalia Úbeda; Ángela García-González; Teresa Partearroyo ; Gregorio Varela-Moreiras
• Effects of Dairy Product Consumption on Height and Bone Mineral Content in Children: A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials.  Carmela de Lamas; María José de Castro; Mercedes Gil-Campos ; Ángel Gil; María Luz Couce …
• Milk and Dairy Product Consumption and Risk of Mortality: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.  Ivan Cavero-Redondo; Celia Alvarez-Bueno; Mercedes Sotos-Prieto; Angel Gil ; Vicente Martinez-Vizcaino …
• Effect of Milk and Other Dairy Products on the Risk of Frailty, Sarcopenia, and Cognitive Performance Decline in the Elderly: A Systematic Review.  Federico Cuesta-Triana; Carlos Verdejo-Bravo; Cristina Fernández-Pérez ; Francisco J Martín-Sánchez
• Effects of Milk and Dairy Products on the Prevention of Osteoporosis and Osteoporotic Fractures in Europeans and Non-Hispanic Whites from North America: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis.  Pilar Matía-Martín; Macarena Torrego-Ellacuría; Angélica Larrad-Sainz ; Cristina Fernández-Pérez; Federico Cuesta-Triana …
• Dairy Product Consumption in the Prevention of Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.  Guillermo Mena-Sánchez; Nerea Becerra-Tomás; Nancy Babio ; Jordi Salas-Salvadó<
• Effects of Milk and Dairy Product Consumption on Type 2 Diabetes: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.  Celia Alvarez-Bueno;  Ivan Cavero-Redondo; Vicente Martinez-Vizcaino; Mercedes Sotos-Prieto ; Jonatan R Ruiz …
• Milk and Dairy Product Consumption and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.  Javier Fontecha; Maria Visitación Calvo; Manuela Juarez; Angel Gil ; Vicente Martínez-Vizcaino
• Association Between Dairy Product Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies.  Laura Barrubés; Nancy Babio; Nerea Becerra-Tomás ; Núria Rosique-Esteban; Jordi Salas-Salvadó
• Milk and Dairy Product Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk and Mortality: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.  Bricia López-Plaza; Laura M Bermejo; Cristina Santurino ; Iván Cavero-Redondo; Celia Álvarez-Bueno …
• Milk and Dairy Product Consumption and Bladder Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.  Laura M Bermejo; Bricia López-Plaza; Cristina Santurino ; Iván Cavero-Redondo; Carmen Gómez-Candela
• Milk and Dairy Product Consumption and Inflammatory Biomarkers: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.  Stine M Ulven; Kirsten B Holven; Angel Gil; Oscar D Rangel-Huerta
• Role of Functional Fortified Dairy Products in Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials.  María J Soto-Méndez; Oscar D Rangel-Huerta; María D Ruiz-López ; Emilio Martínez de Victoria; Augusto Anguita-Ruiz …

Oats do not typically contain gluten, the protein that produces toxic symptoms in people with Celiac Disease.  They do, however, contain a protein that may trouble some people with the disease, but the real problem is that they are often produced in places that also produce products containing wheat, or other grains that do have gluten.

Thus, I was interested to receive the following email from Stephanie Laverone, who describes herself as someone with Celiac Disease.  At my request, she gave permission to reprint what she sent me.

She sent me a link to a published commentary, Oat Consumption by Celiac Disease Patients: Outcomes Range from Harmful to Beneficial, Depending on the Purity of the Oats.  

In the conclusion, the authors explain that oats can benefit or harm people with Celiac Disease, but say that

The outcome appears dependent on the purity of the oats consumed. ..Regardless though, adding oats deemed GF [gluten-free] by these new high standards to CD [Celiac Disease] patient diets, may safely provide the benefit of broader dietary options, leading to improved GFD [gluten-free diet] adherence and quality of life, while bolstering nutritional deficiencies and potentially aiding heart health.

The authors’ Acknowledgment states:

Both authors are salaried employees of PepsiCo Inc. or Quaker Foods and Snacks (QFS), a subsidiary of PepsiCo Inc., which funded this research. QFS has a commercial interest in gluten-free foods. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of PepsiCo Inc.

Ms. Laverone writes (I’ve done some light editing for emphasis):

Gluten Free Oats are controversial in the Celiac Disease community. There is a question of potential cross-reactivity to proteins found in oats that is further complicated by the high rate of cross-contamination of oats by gluten-containing grains.

There are two categories of gluten-free oats currently sold in the US: purity protocol and mechanically/optically sorted. Purity protocol oats are generally considered to be gluten free from field to store while mechanical/optical sorting involves the removal of gluten-containing grains during the processing stage.

Quaker Oats’ Gluten-Free Oats are mechanically/optically sorted (How does Quaker make Gluten Free Oats?).

It is obviously advantageous for Quaker Oats if:

(1) Safe consumption of GF oats by people with Celiac Disease simply relies on gluten testing, and

(2) Mechanically/optically sorted oats test positive for 20+ ppm of gluten less frequently than purity protocol oats, as implied by the final column of the table on the second page [of the Quaker Oats document].

Quaker Oats’ cereals may well be gluten-free.  Let’s hope so.

Gluten intolerance may be controversial—do people who think they are intolerant to gluten, really have problems with it?—but for people with Celiac Disease there is no controversy whatsoever.  Such people must avoid gluten.  Full stop.

What raises a red flag for me is the website statement, “As is always the case, the…safety of our consumers is our number one priority.”

Why the red flag?  That’s what they all say.

As Stephanie Laverone understood, this is another troubling example of the issues that arise from industry-funded research and, in this case, opinion.

Caveat emptor.

Sandro Galea.  Well: What We Need to Talk About When We Talk About Health.  Oxford University Press, 2019.

I blurbed this one:

A superb account of how money, power, politics, and the luck of the draw affect the health of individuals and populations. It should inspire us all to follow Galea in championing public health as an essential public good, and in treasuring and preserving the core values of public health—fairness, justice, and compassion for all.

Galea is the dean of the school of public health at Boston University and a prolific writer on public health topics, including food on occasion.  I am a big fan of his work.  I like his focus on social, economic, and environmental determinants of health and his consistent promotion of the core values of public health.  If you don’t really get what public health is about, this book is a great place to start.

Here is a brief sample from the chapter titled “Choice.”

We imagine our choices to be, for the most part, beyond the reach of outside influence and that, when we choose, we do so from an unlimited array of options; no one tells us what to eat, whether or not we are permitted to exercise, or who we must embrace as a life partner.  For this reason, much of our conversation about health has to do with “lifestyle”—making the correct choices for ourselves, choices which, we believe, will lead to better health.

…Yes, we can choose the food we eat, but our options are limited by what we can afford and by what kinds of food are available for purchase near our home.  These factors, in turn, depend on the quality of our neighborhood and the size of our income, which depends on larger socioeconomic forces over which we have little control.  Likewise, we can only choose to exercise if we live near parks, walkable streets, or athletic facilities, and we can only choose a person to marry from among the individuals we encounter within our community.  Place, power, money, politics, and people—all the forces we discuss in this book—shape the variables that ultimately influence our health.

NutraIngredients-USA.com has posted a set of articles celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which effectively deregulated the supplement industry.  The articles that follow are from the perspective of that industry.

Personally, I’m not a fan of DSHEA, and view deregulation of dietary supplements as a mistake for the industry as well as for the public.  Strong regulation inspires trust.  Weak regulation encourages distrust of supplement products and the entire industry.  When I see a Supplement Facts label, I have no reason to trust that the label reflects the contents of the package.  Until supplements are subjected to the same level of regulation as food products, caveat emptor.

Special Edition: DSHEA at 25

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 created the framework for the modern supplement industry. In 1994, the industry was worth $4 bn. Now it is estimated to be worth over $40 bn.

In this special edition we will talk to some of the industry legends who helped to craft the law, we’ll learn about NPQAA, we’ll hear from the head of the FDA’s Office of Dietary Supplement Programs on the need to modernize the law, get the views of some of the industry association leaders, and look to the future.

• DSHEA at 25: In conversation with Scott Bass and Loren Israelsen: The brilliant strategy of Sen. Orrin Hatch, the upswell of grassroots consumer pressure, and the ‘highly unusual’ personal intervention of an FDA Commissioner: The development and passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act is a fascinating story….. Read
• What was NPQAA and what role did it play in the successful passage of DSHEA?  While much of the focus around DSHEA was on Capitol Hill and the machinations of government, an important behind-the-scenes contribution came from the short lived Natural Products Quality Assurance Alliance. But what was NPQAA and how did it help?.. Watch now
• FDA’s Tave: ‘Opportunity to strengthen regulatory framework couldn’t come at a more pivotal time’: With scientific advances and the growth of the dietary supplements industry on one hand, and the proliferation of adulterated and misbranded products on the other, the opportunity to modernize DSHEA couldn’t come at a better time… Read
• DSHEA Was Not Carved in Stone: Want to spark controversy? Just suggest to some audiences that it’s time to amend DSHEA… Read
• Balancing consumer access and safety: Looking back 25 years, there are several remarkable aspects of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which transformed how dietary supplements are regulated… Read
• Fabricant on DSHEA: ‘Why are we talking about modernizing something that has never been fully implemented?’  As talk in the industry and at the FDA continues around the modernization of DSHEA, not everyone thinks big changes are needed. “The best thing the Agency does is inspect and test,” says NPA’s Dr Daniel Fabricant… Watch now
• Critic says FDA’s slow enforcement makes ‘DSHEA 2.0’ a side issue: Industry critic Dr Pieter Cohen, MD, said FDA’s enforcement is overly deliberate, making any discussion about revisions to DSHEA more or less moot… Read
• Bodybuilding.com VP on DSHEA: What changes could improve the regulation of dietary supplements: Bodybuilding.com’s John Venardos shares some of his ideas to improve the regulation of the dietary supplements industry, from better transparency to greater FDA staff accountability, and how to level the playing field… Watch now
• If botanicals don’t fit easily under supplement heading, why not try to fix that?  Should the creation of a new herbal medicine category be one of the goals of the upcoming discussions about a new regulatory framework? If it were possible, such a change could clear up many of the ambiguities surrounding the marketing of these products as dietary supplements… Read
• What should DSHEA 2.0 look like? Here are a couple of suggestions: On Monday FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb put forward some ideas about where the regulation of dietary supplements should go in the coming years. This is an opportunity that should not be missed. What should be tops on the industry’s wish list?.. Read

 

Here is a summary of another funded study with results the funder must love.

Joint associations between weekday and weekend physical activity or sedentary time and childhood obesity.  Li N, and 19 additional authors for the ISCOLE Research Group. International Journal of Obesity (2019) 43:691–700.

Conclusions: Lower levels of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity] or higher levels of sedentary time on either weekdays or weekend were associated with increased odds of obesity in 9–11 year old children in 12 countries.

Funding: The International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE) was funded by The Coca-Cola Company… With the exception of requiring that the study be global in nature, the funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Comment: This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain.  Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.  Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake.

I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.  In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, “not the other way around.”

He also questions the “no influence” statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of

emails between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.

As I discuss in Unsavory Truth, the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.

As I also discuss in that book, Coca-Cola generously funded the ISCOLE study some years ago.  It has since changed its policy on research funding.