Search results: the corporation not me

Despite chaotic organization (see note below), the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health was inspiring (you can watch it on YouTube here).  It was exciting to be in the room where it happened, as you can see from my photo-taking (courtesy of tweet by Suzanna Martinez).

The conference had a laser-like focus on ending hunger and hunger inequities.  Although there was much talk of diet-related diseases, it was not at all about preventing obesity and its chronic disease consequences in the general population.  Instead, its aim was to make sure that poor people, especially those of color, have access to healthy, culturally appropriate diets at a price they can afford.

Common themes

Bipartisan: Ending hunger has to be a united effort (Republicans were barely represented, but not for lack of trying)

Diet-related disease: none of us ever expected to hear that phrase from high elected officials, let alone POTUS

Lived experience: Many of the panels included people who had grown up on foods stamps, and President Biden was introduced by Jimmieaka Mills of Houston, TX (her name was not listed in the program; I found it on Twitter) who spoke eloquently of how much food assistance meant to her life.

Food at the center: it must stop being an afterthought.

Food as Medicine: This refers to the health care system’s use of food prescriptions or distributions.  Alhough his idea is sometimes perceived as paternalistic—food should really be about pleasure and culture (see ConscienHealth)—it plays well politically.

Impressions

Almost everything related to the conference is on the website.  My reactions.

How it felt: It was a joy to see old friends and colleagues who care deeply about food and preventing hunger.  We hadn’t seen each other since before the pandemic.  Hugs all around.

The tone: This was a packed auditorium with a standing room audience, happy to be there, appreciative, and enthusiastic.

The love: Almost everyone thanked Congressman Jim McGovern who has tried to get this conference held for years.  He got—and deserved—standing ovations.

The speeches

The President: Biden mostly reiterated the main points of the National Strategy, but insisted on the value of the Child Tax Credit (see my previous post on this).  This got a standing ovation (along with a couple of others).  Ending food insecurity, he said, is a way to treat each other with decency.

Jim McGovern: When he worked with George McGovern (no relation, a Democrat) and Republican Bob Dole on food issues,  ending hunger was a bipartisan goal.  Now, 35 million Americans needi food assistance; hunger should be illegal.

Cory Booker: Americans are in the midst of a storm of diet-related disease.  Congress will hold hearings on Food as Medicine.  We need to put the F back in FDA (ovation).

The plenary panel

Debbie Stabenow, who heads the Senate Ag Committee; “We will not cut SNAP.”

Rosa de Lauro, who heads the House appropriations committee: “I like holding the gavel.  We will fund what we need to.”

Eric Adams, mayor of New York City: “We are making healthy eating the default.”

The major speech

José Andrés: This was the major political speech of the conference: the problem, the moral imperative, and the policies needed (ovation). My favorite line: “We must stop giving breadcrumbs and start building bakeries.”

My assessment

The conference put hunger on the agenda of Susan Rice, who heads Biden’s Domestic Policy Council (and who stayed throughout the entire meeting), and on that of the President himself.

• It gave high visibility to the issue.
• It highlighted the fabulous work of individuals and organizations who are working to  help bring people out of poverty.
• It called for—and got—commitments from organizations and corporations to take real action to address food insecurity and its consequences.
• It generated excitement and hope among people working on these issues.

Will it lead to real change?  Will it improve the current situation?  Will it lead to reduced hunger?

Not without public pressure, I’m guessing.

A note on the organizational chaos: last-minute invitations (mine arrived Sunday night after 9:00 p.m. and Eric Adams’ staff, who attended, never did get theirs; no advance schedule until a couple of days before, when it was still quite vague; a 6:00 a.m. announcement to be there at 7:30 to register because security lines would be long; badge printers that didn’t work; no printed program; no clear listing of speakers and times; auditorium too small for audience (most were in overflow room); a mystery as to who was in charge—a committee of the Domestic Policy Council, apparently.  Still, it all worked!

A note on the meals and swag: The James Beard Foundation arranged the lunch—vegan, bison, or chicken. These were packed in heavy plastic lunch trays, later washed and packed along with cutlery into Oxo bags given to participants.  The only real souvenir is the name badge, to be treasured.

A note on Biden’s blooper: He called out Jackie Walorsky— “Where’s Jackie?” — which got gasps from people who knew she had died in a traffic accident in August.   Later, a video tribute to her brought people to tears.

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

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

Thanks to Hugh Joseph for sending this piece on PepsiCo’s commitment to regenerative agriculture in its supply chains: From regenerative ag to reformulation: A deep-dive into how PepsiCo is ‘reimagining the way food is grown, made and enjoyed’

When PepsiCo launched Pep+ in October 2021, the company said it wanted to ‘fundamentally change’ how it does business for the betterment of people and planet​. From ingredient sourcing and production to supporting consumers make choices that are ‘better for themselves and the planet’, Pep+ outlined an ambitious agenda of business transformation.  The company wants to:

•  Spur transition to regenerative practices across land that is equivalent to its entire agricultural footprint, approximately seven million acres.
• Reduce reliance on chemical inputs (but does not rule out their use).
• Secure the future of farming communities and farmer incomes.
• Support farmers by helping them with high fuel and fertilizer costs.
• Support rural communities – and female farmers in particular.
• Transition towards more than 70% of the company’s global electricity needs in direct operations are met by renewables.
• Reach net zero emissions by 2040.
• Improved operational water-use efficiency by 18% in high water-risk areas.
• Use 100% rPET by the end of this year, contributing to 87% of PepsiCo-owned drinks portfolio in the European Union being made using 100% recycled or renewable plastic.
• Eliminate virgin fossil-based plastic in all crisp and chip bags..

And then there are Pepsi’s nutrition objectives [recall: Pepsi makes snack brands like Walkers and Dorito alongside its line-up of fizzy drinks].

Use more chickpeas, plant-based proteins and wholegrains.

Expand nuts and seeds category.

In Europe, cut added sugars in its soft drinks by 50% .

Improve the nutritional quality of snack products.

My questions:

• Is this real or greenwashing and healthwashing?
• Who is holding Pepsi accountable for achieving these objectives?

The larger question is whether Pepsi’s portfolio of snack foods and sugary drinks can ever be sustainable?

In 2011, I was quoted in a New Yorker article about Pepsi’s health initiatives.

As part of PepsiCo’s commitment to being “the good company,” the corporation wants to play a leading role in public-health issues, and particularly in the battle against obesity. Some people think this is ludicrous. Marion Nestle, the author of “Food Politics” and a professor of food studies at N.Y.U., told me, “The best thing Pepsi could do for worldwide obesity would be to go out of business.”

I probably wouldn’t use the word ludicrous (and I’m not sure I did then), but the effort was certainly unrealistic.

Like all publicly traded corporations, PepsiCo is heavily constrained by shareholder profit objectives.

A decade ago, its shareholders objected to a focus on public health when sales of Pepsi declined.

Has anything changed since then?

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

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

Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower.  Unpacking School Lunch: Understanding the Hidden Politics of School Food.   Palgrave Macmillan 2022.

I did a back-cover blurb for this one:

Unpacking School Lunch is a wonderfully written, fresh, original, and utterly compelling account of what advocates are up against in getting schools to serve healthier, more sustainable meals to kids.  This book is an absolute must-read for anyone who cares about what kids eat, not least for Weaver-Hightower’s remarkably astute analysis (“unpacking!”) of conservative opposition to improving school food.

And while I was reading it, I collected a few choice excerpts.

Why school food matters:

[S]chool food broadly touches society in ways few other policy realms do, so school food should enjoy wide civil debate…School food (a) affects students’ health, 9b) affects student attainment and achievement, (c) affects teaching and administration, (d) teaches children about food, (e) implicates identify and culture, (f) affects the environment and animals, (g) represents big business, (h) provides a window into educational politics and policy, and (i) impacts social justice.

The key questions:

• I argue, principally, that school food remains so controversial nearly 75 years after becoming federal policy, because the policy’s fundamental political tensions have never been resolved.  The United States still struggles with key debates: whether the government should provide nutritional aid to individuals; whether such aid robs individuals of drive and self-direction; whether federal aid infringes on basic, often religious beliefs about culture, gender, race, and class; whether the government can tell us what to eat; whether support for this program benefits children or corporations.
• We lack, though, a progressive vision within national-level politics to fundamentally rethink and improve school food.
• Why is feeding children different [from everything else in school that is free]?  Why is food somehow seen as a welfare giveaway with moral ramifications and worthy of recriminations?  In a progressive vision of school meals, feeding is part of the infrastructure of schooling and should be as free as the rest of the facility.

This is another terrific book about school food, and it could not be more timely.

The USDA has just released this summary of food research funding.

This graph clearly indicates what I view as a big problem: government funding for agricultural and food research has been declining since the early 2000s, whereas private funding—meaning corporations and industries—has sharply increased since 2008 or so.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Government funding can support basic research with no obvious commercial implications—science.

Funding by food corporations and industries has one primary purpose: to develop and promote products—marketing.

I’m not opposed to marketing research, as long as it is labeled as such.

The decline in federal funding for food and nutrition research has long-term implications for scientific progress.

We need basic research on agriculture, food, nutrition, and health.

These curves need to be reversed.

Really?  Another peanut butter Salmonella recall?  The last one was a disaster (more than 700 cases of illness and 9 deaths).  Among other things, it resulted in imprisonment for the head of the Peanut Corporation of America.

Well, here we go again.

The FDA announced the outbreak traced to Smucker’s Jif.

It also announced Smucker’s recall of those products.

And it provided links to further information.

• What is Salmonella
• Food Safety Tips for Consumers & Retailers During an Outbreak
• Who to Contact

The CDC announced its investigation results to date.

• Illnesses: 16
• Hospitalizations: 2
• Deaths: 0
• States: 12
• Recall: Yes
• Investigation status: Active

And it issued a food safety alert. Peanut butter has a long shelf life.  Discard Jif peanut butter with lot code numbers 1274425 through 2140425, with “425” at the end of the first 7 numbers.

But that’s not all.  Companies using Jif peanut butter dip with precut vegetables or in candy were also in trouble (see list at the end).

How does Salmonella get into peanut butter?  Scientific American explained how this happened the last time.

Feces from some animal is a strong possibility. A leak in the roof, for example, caused one of the early outbreaks. How salmonella got into the water that was on the roof, no one knows for sure. Maybe birds, for instance, which accumulate around peanut butter processing plants.  The roasting of peanuts is the only step that will kill the salmonella. If contamination occurs after the roasting process, the game is over and salmonella is going to survive. Studies have shown that salmonella can survive for many months in peanut butter once it’s present.

Preventive controls, anyone?

And here, thanks to Bill Marler and Food Safety News, is the current list of Jif recalls: .

• The JM Smucker Co. – US May 20, 2022
• The JM Smucker Co. – Canada May 21, 2022

The collateral damage:

• Rainbow Asset Limited – Hong Kong:May 23, 2022
• Randy Ltd. – Israel:May 23, 2022
• Albertsons Companies(11 store-prepared items) May 21, 2022
• Bix Produce Company(2 products containing Jif Creamy Peanut Butter To Go 1.5 oz. cup) May 26, 2022
• Cargill(multiple products containing peanut butter, sold at the Wilbur Chocolate Retail Store in Lititz, Pa. and online at Wilburbuds.com.) May 23, 2022
• Coblentz Chocolate Company(multiple peanut butter products) May 24, 2022
• Country Fresh(select fresh-cut fruit snack trays and fruit snack cups) May 24, 2022
• Fresh Del Monte(fresh-cut fruit and vegetable products containing ready-to-eat Jif^® peanut butter dip) May 24, 2022
• Fudgeamentals(several fudge products made with Jif Peanut Butter) May 25, 2022
• Garden Cut, LLC(Garden Cut products containing 0.750z Jif Peanut Butter Cup) May 24, 2022
• Giant(Store Brand Apples, Pretzels & Celery with Peanut Butter) May 23, 2022
• Martin’s(Store Brand Apples, Pretzels & Celery with Peanut Butter) May 23, 2022
• Mary’s Harvest Fresh Foods Inc(Mary’s Harvest Celery Peanut Butter Cup G&G and Apple Peanut Butter Cup G&G) May 24, 2022
• Price Chopper(M32 Apples, Cheese and Pretzels with Peanut Butter Tray) May 23, 2022
• Taher Inc.(“Fresh Seasons Power Packs”) May 24, 2022
• Wawa(two products containing Jif Peanut Butter) May 24, 2022
• Wegmans(Wegmans Snack with Apple, Pretzels, Cheese and Peanut Butter) May 22, 2022

The American Journal of Public Health has just published a first look—ahead of its print in June—at my most recent article, Regulating the Food Industry: An Aspirational Agenda [if you are not a member of the American Public Health Association, this will be behind a paywall, alas].

It begins:

I end it with policy recommendations for:

• Dietary guidelines
• Mass media campaigns
• Taxes
• Warning labels
• Marketing restrictions
• Portion size restrictions
• Farm subsidies

Hence, aspirational.

And, I say,

While we are thinking in aspirational terms, let us not forget root causes. We must also demand policies that link agriculture to public health, keep corporate money out of politics, reduce corporate concentration, and require Wall Street evaluate corporations on the basis of social as well as fiscal responsibility.  In comparison with those challenges, takin gon the food industry should be easy.

Let’s get to work.

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.

I learned about this one from an article—no, it’s an ad really—in NutraIngredients.com.

Its headline: “Large new study validates krill oil’s heart health benefits.”

Heading the page is this note:

CONTENT PROVIDED BY AKER BIOMARINE SUPERBAKrill Learn More

I clicked on Learn More and got a disclaimer, the first time I have seen something like this:

The following content is provided by an advertiser or created on behalf of an advertiser. It is not written by the NutraIngredients.com editorial team, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of NutraIngredients.com.

OK.  Now we know that the entire article is an ad paid for by the maker of the product under discussion.

What about the research?

The study: Effectiveness of a Novel ω-3 Krill Oil Agent in Patients With Severe HypertriglyceridemiaA Randomized Clinical Trial.  Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH¹; Kevin C. Maki, PhD^2,3; Harold E. Bays, MD⁴; et alFernando Aguilera, MD⁵; Glenn Gould, MD⁶; Robert A. Hegele, MD⁷; Patrick M. Moriarty, MD⁸; Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH⁹; Peilin Shi, PhD¹; Josefina F. Tur, MD¹⁰; Jean-François Lapointe, PhD¹¹; Sarya Aziz, PhD¹¹; Pierre Lemieux, PhD¹¹; for the TRILOGY (Study of CaPre in Lowering Very High Triglycerides) investigators.  JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(1):e2141898. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.41898

Method: The investigators pooled data from two previous trials of people given Krill oil or a cornstarch placebo for 26 weeks.

Results: “This study found that ω-3 –PL/FFA, a novel krill oil–derived ω-3 formulation, reduced TG levels and was safe and well tolerated in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia.”

Funding/Support:The study was sponsored by Acasti Pharma Inc. [Acasti partners with Aker to make Krill oil]

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor collaborated with the academic principal investigator (Dr Mozaffarian) in the design and conduct of the study, interpretation of the data, and review and suggestions for editing of the manuscript. The sponsor collaborated with the academic principal investigator and an independent contract research organization (IQVIA) in study implementation, data collection, and management. The sponsor had no role in the analysis of the data or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mozaffarian reported serving as a consultant for Acasti Pharma Inc as principal investigator of this trial; receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation; personal fees from Barilla, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Danone SA, and Motif FoodWorks; chapter royalties from UpToDate; serving on the scientific advisory board of Beren Therapeutics PBC, Brightseed, Calibrate, DayTwo (ended June 2020), Elysium Health, Filtricine Inc, Foodome Inc, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day Inc, Season, and Tiny Organics; and holding stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo outside the submitted work. Dr Maki reported receiving research grants from and consulting for Acasti Pharma Inc and Matinas BioPharma Holdings Inc, and receiving research funding from Indiana University Foundation, Pharmavite, Novo Nordisk A/S, General Mills Inc, The Kellogg Company, and PepsiCo Inc, and consulting for 89bio Inc, and NewAmsterdam Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr Bays reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Aguilera reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Gould reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Hegele reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc and personal fees from Akcea-Ionis, Amgen Inc, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics Inc, Novartis International AG, and Pfizer Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Moriarty reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Robinson reported receiving research grants to the institution from Acasti Pharma Inc, Amarin Corporation, Amgen Inc, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly & Co, Esperion Therapeutics Inc, The Medicines Company, Merck & Co Inc, Novartis International AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, and consulting fees from COR2ED, Getz Pharma Limited, The Medicines Company, and Novartis International AG. Dr Shi reported consulting for Acasti Pharma Inc for performing statistical analyses on this trial. Dr Tur reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Lapointe reported owning stock or stock options in Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Aziz reported owning stock or stock options in Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Lemieux reported serving chief operating officer/chief strategy officer of Acasti Pharma Inc during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work and holding a patent for CaPre. No other disclosures were reported. [My emphasis]

Comment: You can’t make this stuff up.

Reference: For research on why and how industry sponsorship can influence study outcome, see Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.