Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study.  Keri Szejda, Christopher J. Bryant, Tessa Urbanovich.  Foods 2021, 10(5), 1050.

Background: “Despite growing evidence of the environmental and public health threats posed by today’s intensive animal production, consumers in the west remain largely attached to meat. Cultivated meat offers a way to grow meat directly from cells, circumventing these issues as well as the use of animals altogether.”

Purpose: “The aim of this study was to assess the overall consumer markets and a range of preferences around cultivated meat in the US and the UK relating to nomenclature, genetic modification, health enhancements, and other features.”

Conclusion: “there are solid consumer markets for cultivated meat in the UK and the US, despite an overall lack of familiarity with the product. Younger generations are the most open to trying cultivated meat, and government seals of approval are considered important. Consumers tend to prefer non-GM cultivated meat, and while nutritional enhancements do not add much to consumer appeal overall, they may be an effective way to provide tangible benefits to more skeptical consumers.”

Funding: “This work was supported by Aleph Farms. Aleph Farms participated in the study design, but not other aspects of the project.”

Conflicts of interest: “The authors report no conflicts of interest.”

Comment: Aleph Farms produces cell-based meat substitutes: “We’re paving a new way forward in the field of cultivated meat, growing delicious, real beef steaks from the cells of cows, eliminating the need for slaughtering animals or harming the environment.”

The company paid for consumer research to find out how to sell its product.   The authors perceive no conflicted interests in this kind of paid research.  The biases induced by paid research are often unconscious and unrecognized.  The result of this study is an implied suggestion to add nutrients to cell-based meat products as a means to convince people to buy them.

This is marketing research.

Thanks to Michele Simon for sending a query about this paper.

I recently received an email from the Soyfoods Council: “If You’re Confused About Endocrine Disruptors, Here’s Why Soy Isn’t One.”

The email explained that “the Soyfoods Council is a non-profit organization, created and funded by Iowa soybean farmers, providing a complete resource to increase awareness of soyfoods, educate and inform media, healthcare professionals, consumers and the retail and foodservice markets about the many benefits of soyfoods.  Iowa is the country’s number one grower of soybeans and is the Soyfoods Capital of the world.”

The email referred to a just-published paper

The Study: Neither soyfoods nor isoflavones warrant classification as endocrine disruptors: a technical review of the observational and clinical data, by Mark Messina,Sonia Blanco Mejia,Aedin Cassidy,Alison Duncan,Mindy Kurzer,Chisato Nagato, et al.  Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, published online: 27 Mar 2021.

Conclusion: After extensive [my emphasis] review, the evidence does not support classifying isoflavones as endocrine disruptors.

Funding: “Funds were provided by the Soy Nutrition Institute and the European Plant-based Food Association to MM and the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis & Clinical Trials Foundation for work related to the development and writing of this paper.”

Disclosures: Mark John Messina receives funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute as its Executive Director. Both Mindy Kurzer and John Sievenpiper are on the advisory board of the Soy Nutrition Institute. Ian Rowland is on the advisory board of the European Plant-based Foods Association. I have disclosed those interests fully to Taylor & Francis, and have in place an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from these positions.

Comment: “Extensive” is an understatement; the paper has 688 references.  This may be overkill, but its purpose is to put to rest any concerns that soybeans might act as endocrine disrupters and, therefore, should be avoided.  The Soy Foods Council, obviously, wants you to stop worrying about this and paid for this review for that purpose.

I’m not particularly worried about soybeans.  As I wrote in What to Eat, I view soy as neither poison nor panacea.  But there is plenty of evidence on both sides.  That’s why paid reviews are not helpful.

The study: Investigating walnut consumption and cognitive trajectories in a representative sample of older US adults.  Nicholas J. Bishop and Krystle E. Zuniga.  Public Health Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 7 , May 2021 , pp. 1741 – 1752.

Purpose: To estimate the association between whole walnut intake and cognitive change in a sample of 3632 US adults aged 65 years and older.

Method:  This was a secondary analysis of dietary data and health outcome from the Health and Retirement Study and Health Care and Nutrition Study.

Conclusions: “We identified an association between walnut consumption and cognitive function in older adults, although we did not find that walnut consumption was protective against age-related cognitive decline.”

Financial support: This research was funded by the California Walnut Commission.

Comment: Eating walnuts tracks with cognitive function in this sample, but has no particular effect on it.  As I read them, the conclusions put a positive spin on a null finding, a classic example of “interpretation bias.”  The Walnut Commission paid for the study and this interpretation helps to sell walnuts.  I think walnuts are great but wish the California Walnut Commission would stay out of this kind of marketing research.

You might not think that avocados need any special sales efforts, but the Haas Avocado marketers are particularly aggressive in funding research to demonstrate the health benefits of this food.

I’ve written about Haas-funded avocado research previously (most recently, here and here) but here’s yet another, this time initiated by a tweet:

I think avocados are fine foods, love them, but wish their marketers would not do this.  Here’s the Good News Network headline: “An Avocado a Day May Keep Your Gut Microbes Happy, Study Shows.”  As always, the operative word is “may.”  The headline would be equally correct saying “may not.”

The study: Avocado Consumption Alters Gastrointestinal Bacteria Abundance and Microbial Metabolite Concentrations among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Sharon V Thompson, Melisa A Bailey, Andrew M Taylor, Jennifer L Kaczmarek, Annemarie R Mysonhimer, Caitlyn G Edwards, Ginger E Reeser, Nicholas A Burd, Naiman A Khan, Hannah D Holscher.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 151, Issue 4, April 2021, Pages 753–762.

Conclusions: “Daily avocado consumption resulted in lower fecal bile acid concentrations, greater fecal fatty acid and SCFAs, and greater relative abundances of bacteria capable of fiber fermentation, providing evidence that this nutrient-dense food affects digestive physiology, as well as the composition and metabolic functions of the intestinal microbiota.”

Funding: Support for this research was provided by the Hass Avocado Board and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1009249.

Author disclosures: NAB, NAK, and HDH received grant funding from the Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: All fruits and vegetables provide nutritional value and the best way to get the nutrients you need is by eating a variety of them.  If you like avocados, include them in that variety.  If not, don’t.

The Haas marketers want you to think that avocados are a superfood.  Alas, there is no such thing.  All fruits and vegetables provide nutritional value.  By that criterion, all fruits and vegetables are superfoods.

Here’s an example of how Haas advertises:

Did you know fresh avocados can be part of the MyPlate food guide?

• Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.

Avocados are a nutrient-dense fruit with naturally good fats and are easily incorporated into various meals and snacks. One serving (50g or one-third of a medium avocado) has only 80 calories and contributes nearly 20 vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients along with dietary fiber.

The same could be said for most other fruits and vegetables, although most will be lower in calories.

Dietary Patterns and Nutritional Status in Relation to Consumption of Chickpeas and Hummus in the U.S. Population.  by  Cara L. Frankenfeld and Taylor C. Wallace.   Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(20), 7341; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207341

Conclusion: ” Adults who consumed chickpeas and hummus were 48% and 62% less likely to have metabolic syndrome, respectively. Consuming chickpeas or hummus may be a practical means of improving diet quality and nutritional status. ”

Funding:  This research was funded by an investigator-initiated, unrestricted educational grant from Sabra Dipping Co., LLC.

Comment: That’s what they all say about the sponsor’s role, despite substantial evidence to the contrary (in many other cases).  Sabra is owned by PepsiCo.

Hat tip: To Daniel Bowmn Simon for sending me this one.

I like potatoes and they have plenty of nutritional value along with their calories, but their calories mainly come from starch—a rapidly digested carbohydrate.

The Harvard Food Pyramid puts potatoes in the “Eat Sparingly” category, right at the top with red meat, butter, and sugary beverages.

Potato industry marketers to the rescue!  Take a look at the website of Potatoes USA, which has as its mission developing marketing campaigns for the industry.

Industry participation is key to making any campaign a success. Here you’ll find marketing tools that will help you promote the positive potato nutrition message.  Find the tools that match your organization, whether you’re looking for resources for retailers, manufacturers, consumers, foodservice operators, or information on potato nutrition.

Here you can find a toolkit on how to market potatoes:

For years we’ve talked about why you can eat potatoes. Now we’re talking about why you should eat potatoes. Getting the whole industry involved is key to getting this message heard. Find the tools you need to support the process with events in your area.

I was interested in what they have to say about nutrition, of course: “Potatoes are more energy-packed than any other popular vegetable and provide the carbohydrates, potassium and energy you need to perform your best.”

The nutrition campaign focuses on energy for performance.  It provides a Nutrition Facts label that reassures you that one 5.3-ounce potato has only 110 calories.

It doesn’t say much—anything, really—about how Americans mostly eat potatoes, which happens to be as fries or chips.

It does provide tons of information about marketing methods, the research sponsored by the potato industry, and even issues regarding international trade—a goldmine if you are interested in this sort of thing.

If you just want to eat them, watch out for the added fats.  The bigger the potato—and the more butter and sour cream—the higher the calories.

Effects of Whole Grain Intake, Compared with Refined Grain, on Appetite and Energy Intake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.  Lisa M Sanders, Yong Zhu, Meredith L Wilcox, Katie Koecher, Kevin C Maki.  Advances in Nutrition, Published: 02 February 2021, nmaa178.

Conclusion: These results support the view that consumption of WG [whole grain] foods, compared with RG [refined grain] foods, significantly impacts subjective appetite, and might partly explain the inverse associations between WG food intake and risk of overweight, obesity, and weight gain over time.

Funder: This research was funded by Bell Institute of Nutrition, General Mills, Inc.

Author disclosures: KCM, MLW, and LMS are employees of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding from General Mills, Inc., Kellogg Company, and the Quaker division of PepsiCo. KK and YZ are employees of General Mills, Inc. The funding sponsor provided comments on early aspects of the study design. Interim analyses and the final data were shared with the sponsor prior to publication, but the final decision for all aspects of study conduct and manuscript content is that of the authors alone.

Comment: General Mills paid for the study, had input into the study design, and reviewed the data and analysis before publication.  Two of the authors are employed by General Mills and the others work for a company that gets funding from General Mills.  This is a study designed to help General Mills market products containing whole grains.

Marketing of whole grains is tricky.  The only label that counts is 100% whole grains.  Anything other than that is marketing hype.

The Study:  Maaike J. Bruins and Ulla Létinois. Adequate Vitamin D Intake Cannot Be Achieved within Carbon Emission Limits Unless Food Is Fortified: A Simulation Study.  Nutrients 2021, 13(2), 592; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020592

Conclusion: The present study shows that adequate intakes for vitamin D cannot be achieved with the current diet alone within realistic calorie and carbon emission limits, and additional vitamin D sources are needed to overcome the shortfalls. Universal fortification along with small dietary shifts represents an approach to improve the vitamin D status of the general population, at a high acceptability without affecting the carbon footprint.

Conflicts of Interest: M.J.B. and U.L. are employed by DSM Nutritional Products, a manufacturer of nutritional ingredients.

Comment: Study after study shows that vitamin D supplements do not make healthy people healthier, but the idea persists and supplement companies take advantage of faith in these products.  Well, there isn’t much evidence for harm either, but sunshine on skin is a better source by far.

OK.  I know there’s a big controversy about this.

Here’s a study that shows benefits for patients with COVID; supplements were associated with keeping people out of intensive care.  One of its authors has financial ties to supplement companies, but the study has been criticized on other grounds as has a member of the British Parliament who thinks it provides evidence for supplementing everyone.

And here’s an independently funded study in JAMA shows that vitamin D to have no effect on patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

This one, comes with an editorial.

Given the lack of highly effective therapies against COVID-19, except perhaps for corticosteroids, it is important to remain open-minded to emerging results from rigorously conducted studies of vitamin D (despite smaller sample sizes and important limitations of some studies). However, taken together with existing randomized clinical trials of vitamin D administration in hospitalized patients with respiratory infection and critical illness, the results reported by Murai et al¹² do not support routine administration of vitamin D in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Fortunately, vitamin D supplements are unlikely to be harmful unless taken in very large doses.

Sunshine, anyone?