by Marion Nestle

Search results: superfood

Dec 18 2019

The latest in superfoods: camel’s milk?

Really?  Camel’s milk?  I am indebted to DairyReporter.com for a review of research on the health benefits of camel’s milk.

According to this overview, camel’s milk can

  • Prevent colorectal cancer
  • Reduce cellular inflammation due to diabetes
  • Cures autism
  • Enhances immunity
  • Cures hepatitis
  • Prevents food allergies

A miracle food?

Alas, the article explains, most of these studies were performed in mice or published in journals unlikely to be rigorously peer reviewed.

What can I tell you about the nutritional quality of camel’s milk?

Unfortunately, the USDA’s food composition data base does not have an entry for camel’s milk.  What looks like a reasonable review of the nutritional value of camel’s milk (which you can download from this site) suggests that there are differences in nutrient composition between cow’s and camel’s milks, but the differences are small.  Because the proteins differ, people sensitive or allergic to cow’s milk will have an easier time consuming camel’s milk.

The big issue with camel’s milk in the United States is that it is not pasteurized.  Raw milk carries a greater food safety risk than pasteurized milk.

The FDA also has issued a warning against unproven claims that camel milk prevents autism.

I’m not seeing any particular health benefits from drinking camel milk other than avoiding allergic reactions to cow’s milk.

If you insist on drinking it, make sure it comes from a producer who diligently tests it for pathogens.

Tags:
Aug 1 2007

Scientifically engineered “superfoods”

Eating Liberally is now interviewing me on a regular basis in a post called “Let’s Ask Marion.” Today’s question is about foods created by technologists to introduce some health benefit–what I like to call “techno-foods.” It is timely because today’s New York Times has a report by Andrew Martin of his visit to the recent convention of the Institute of Food Technology. Are these foods really designed to make you healthy? Or are they about the financial health of their makers?

Nov 10 2025

Industry funded studies of the week: Mango

In case it’s not obvious, I view studies claiming major health benefits from eating one food—mangoes in this case—to be about marketing, not science.  We don’t eat just one food; we eat diets of enormous complexity.  This makes such studies inherently ridiculous.  And I’m not the only one who thinks so.  Some examples:

IInsulin sensitivity

This one comes from Obesity and Energetics Offerings’ occasional series on “Headline vs Study”

Headline: Daily Mango Consumption May Improve Insulin Sensitivity in Overweight or Obese Adults.

Study: RCT [randomized control trial] of Mango or Control Product: Markers of Inflammation [Joint Primary Outcomes] Were Not Different at the End of 4 Weeks. [Oops]

Here’s the press release from the National Mango Board: New Study: Eating Mangos Daily Shown to Improve Insulin Sensitivity and Blood Glucose Control.  It notes: “This study was supported through an unrestricted grant from the National Mango Board (NMB). NMB had no influence over the study or its findings.”

II.  Cholesterol and blood pressure

Here’s the blurb for this one: Journal of the American Nutrition Association Mango intake linked to short-term cholesterol, blood pressure benefits A two-week trial in postmenopausal women found that daily mango consumption lowered blood pressure and fasting cholesterol, though it did not affect microvascular function or inflammation markers. Read More

Conclusions: Further research using amounts of mango typically consumed, over an extended period of time, are warranted [well, at least this is an honest assessment].

Funding: This study was supported by a research grant from the National Mango Board. The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of the study, the data analysis, interpretation of the results, or the decision to publish.

III.  Diabetes prevention

Basiri R, Dawkins K, Singar S, Ormsbee LT, Akhavan NS, Hickner RC, Arjmandi BH. Daily Mango Intake Improves Glycemic and Body Composition Outcomes in Adults with Prediabetes: A Randomized Controlled Study. Foods. 2025; 14(17):2971. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14172971 

Conclusion: The daily consumption of mango for 24 weeks improved the glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and body composition in adults with prediabetes, which supports the potential of mango as a practical dietary intervention for metabolic health.

Funding: The National Mango Board provided funding for this study.

From ConscienHealth: Magical Mango Thinking About Preventing Diabetes

Diabetes Prevention?

But the real problem with claiming a benefit for diabetes prevention is that this study did not study the onset of diabetes.

So do mangoes prevent diabetes? Not likely. Not all by themselves.

Are they a better snack than sugary granola bars? Probably so.

From Medical News Today: Is it OK to eat mango if you’re at risk for diabetes? Experts weigh in

  • In a recent study, mangoes more effectively improved prediabetes risk factors in a new study than low-sugar granola bars.
  • The key to mangoes’ better results likely lies in their being a whole food with natural fiber, vitamins, and nutrients.
  • However, experts agree that the best way to avoid type 2 diabetes is to eat a balanced, healthy diet and be physically active, rather than to depend on a single ‘superfood’ to prevent the condition.

Comment

Enough said.  I love mangoes (although I have to be careful about their skin and pits).  Their deliciousness is reason enough to eat them.  I suppose the Mango Board has to justify its existence….

Oct 13 2025

Industry-funded studies of the week: Nuts!

My collection of studies funded by the nut industry is growing, so here are a bunch all at once.

Almonds: Almond Consumption Modestly Improves Pain Ratings, Muscle Force Production, and Biochemical Markers of Muscle Damage Following Downhill Running in Mildly Overweight, Middle-Aged Adults: A Randomized, Crossover Trial. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 9, 104432

  • Conclusion: This study demonstrates that 2.0 oz/d of almonds modestly reduces pain, better maintains muscle strength, and reduces the CK response to eccentric-based exercise.
  • Funding: This study was supported by the Almond Board of California

Peanuts: Peanut Polyphenols Are Bioaccessible and Inhibit Proliferation of Cultured Jurkat Leukemia Cells.  Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Supplement 2, July 2024, 102631

  • Conclusions: Polyphenol-rich PSE inhibits the growth and proliferation of Jurkat cells [a cell line derived from leukemia T-cells].
  • Funding: The Peanut Institute.

Pecans: Pecan Intake Improves Lipoprotein Particle Concentrations Compared with Usual Intake in Adults at Increased Risk of Cardiometabolic Diseases: A Randomized Controlled Trial.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 155, Issue 5, 1459 – 1465

  • Conclusion: Incorporating 57 g/d of pecans into the diet in place of usual snacks for 12 wk improved apoB, atherogenic lipoprotein subfractions, and the LP-IR in adults at risk of cardiometabolic diseases.
  • Funding: This study was funded by the American Pecan Council.

Pistachios: Nighttime Pistachio Consumption Alters Stool Microbiota Diversity and Taxa Abundance Compared with Education to Consume 1–2 Carbohydrate Exchanges (15–30 grams) over 12 Weeks in Adults with Prediabetes: A Secondary Analysis from a Randomized Crossover Trial.  Current Developments in Nutrition.  Volume 9, Issue 7107481July 2025 [Thanks to Martin Camhi for this one]

  • Conclusions: In adults with prediabetes, intake of 57 g/d of pistachios as a nighttime snack altered stool microbial community diversity and composition compared with a CHO-rich snack, providing evidence of stool microbial effects with pistachio consumption.
  • Funding: The American Pistachio Growers; Penn State’s Clinical & Translational Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University

Comment: If one nut producer does this, they all have to.  This is about market competition.  The idea is to convince you that nuts are superfoods performing health miracles and to eat more nuts.  These studies must be interpreted as marketing efforts.

Nuts are indeed healthy, but highly caloric—best eaten in small handfuls.  

If such studies should convince you of anything, it’s to eat the nuts you like.  They all can be shown to have health benefits.

Tags: ,
Jun 2 2025

Industry-funded scientific scandal: maple syrup, alas

Why alas?  I love maple syrup.

But the Quebec Maple Syrup Producers association apparently has decided that it needs to boost sales by promoting maple syrup as a superfood.

Sigh.

The article in the New York Times is titled: “A Scientist Is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It.”

The subtitle: “Funded by the maple industry, a researcher has exaggerated his findings to suggest that syrup could help prevent serious diseases.”

For more than a decade, Navindra Seeram, a biomedical researcher, has praised maple syrup, calling it a “hero ingredient” and “champion food” that could have wide-ranging health benefits…As he straddles the realms of scientific inquiry and promotion, he has distorted the real-world implications of his findings and exaggerated health benefits…In videos and press releases, he has suggested that consuming maple syrup may help stave off diseases including cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

The article continues…

At the University of Rhode Island, where he worked until last year, Dr. Seeram oversaw projects that were awarded $2.6 million in U.S. government funding, including a grant explicitly intended to increase maple syrup sales. That promotional work produced a stream of social media posts like, “Maple Syrup’s Benefits: Anti-Cancer, Anti-Oxidant, Anti-Inflammatory.”

Oh how I wish.

As for who pays for this,

The Quebec Maple Syrup Producers, an industry association that markets and regulates most of the world’s maple syrup, has long funded Dr. Seeram’s work. The association and the Canadian government have together provided at least $2.8 million for his research, according to a 2019 grant applicatio

Maple syrup is just a form of sugar, and mostly sucrose at that.  It does have a few minerals in small amounts, along with its fabulously delicious flavoring ingredients.

But a nutritional powerhouse?  Alas, no.

Apr 9 2025

What’s up with candy? And its food dyes?

I don’t say much about candy on this site, mainly because it’s best consumed in small amounts, if at all.

Candy sellers, however, have a very different view.  Their job is to sell candy, and the more the better (never mind consequences).

I’m always interested to see what they say and do to increase sales, especially when they try to make candy seem healthier (oops).

Nov 11 2024

Industry-funded review of the week: strawberries (off season)

Thanks to Stephen Zwick of Regenetarianism for sending this one.

Charoenwoodhipong, P., Zuelch, M. L., Keen, C. L., Hackman, R. M., & Holt, R. R. (2024). Strawberry (Fragaria x Ananassa) intake on human health and disease outcomes: a comprehensive literature reviewCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2024.2398634

From the Abstract

Of the 60 articles included in this review, 47 were clinical trials, while 13 were observational studies. A majority of these studies reported on the influence of strawberry intake on cardiometabolic outcomes. Study designs included those examining the influence of strawberry intake during the postprandial period, short-term trials randomized with a control, or a single arm intake period controlling with a low polyphenolic diet or no strawberry intake. A smaller proportion of studies included in this review examined the influence of strawberry intake on additional outcomes of aging including bone and brain health, and cancer risk. Data support that the inclusion of strawberries into the diet can have positive impacts during the postprandial period, with daily intake improving outcomes of lipid metabolism and inflammation in those at increased cardiovascular risk.

Funding: This work was supported by the California Strawberry Commission (CSC). PC, MLZ, and RRH received financial support from the CSC for this work.

Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Comment: I can never get over how industry-funded authors do not view industry funding as a conflict of interest when so much evidence confirms that such funding strongly influences research design and interpretation.  For the record, I review that evidence in my book Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

This sure looks like a standard industry-funded study with a predictable outcome favorable to the strawberry industry in this case.

Strawberries are a fine food, delicious, nutritious, and obviously healthful.  But a superfood responsible on their own for disease prevention?

How I wish.

This is marketing research.

May 30 2024

What’s new in food tech? A few that caught my fancy

I’m a food technology skeptic but I do enjoy keeping an eye on what food scientists and innovators are coming up with.  Just what we need!