Oy Vey It's A Food Newsletter - Vol 2, Issue 15
A nutritionist-written newsletter that isn't sponsored by Big Soda, unless....👀
Hi hi,
Shana tova (happy new year)!
You get your Ginny picture up top today, and it’s a throwback because *drum roll* it’s our 6-year adoptaversary!
6 years of rope toy tug-of-war, being bathed in kisses, watching those ears bounce and bounce and bounce, and getting stressed out anytime someone dares to knock on our front door. She’s not an easy dog, but I’m not an easy human. We deserve each other. I don’t know how it’s possible but I love her more with every single day that passes, and I make sure to tell her that every night when I tuck her into her bed.
Much love,
Kayla (and Ginny)
What I’ve Read
France makes fresh bid to ban meat names for plant-based food - In seeking to avoid supposedly misleading claims, France announced revised proposals for banning terms like “steak” “ham” and “spare ribs” for plant-based meat alternatives (surprisngly, burger is not on the list). France tried a similar measure is 2022, which was suspended by the highest administrative court for logistical discrepancies. But what about animal meat products made and sold in France that contain some type of plant protein? Don’t worry, this revised proposal allows for meat-associated names to be used on products with a plant protein content between 0.5-6%.
Speaking of EU bans that want to protect consumers from (actually) misleading claims: EU to ban greenwashing and improve consumer information on product durability.
Orthodox Union certifies Israeli brand of lab-grown meat as kosher — but not pareve - After hosting 2 rabbinic delegations, Israeli startup SuperMeat received kosher certification from the Orthodox Union (O.U.). The O.U. delegated the cultivated chicken as meat, not dairy or pareve (not animal meat or dairy). The union will not recognize cultivated meat from unkosher animals (like pigs or shellfish) as kosher. SuperMeat has plans to submit for GRAS approval in the US by early 2025.
How to be sort of vegan—and how it would help the planet - So this is a very silly title. We have words for “sort of vegan” or “‘Vegan Before 6:00;” that make way more sense; omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, plant-based, reducetarian. Or, you could simply say you’re trying to reduce your consumption of animals. The good news about this poorly titled article is that it highlights an interesting, newly published study that looks at global food system indicators with and without plant-based dietary transformations. The study included modeling based on recipes using novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives to replace animal products. It should be noted that 3 of the article’s authors were or are employees of Impossible Foods Inc., and Impossible and Beyond burgers were included in some of the modeled recipes. Funny how everyone seems to have shit to say about the term “vegan” until they need to capture attention and generate some clicks!
Insiders Reveal Major Problems at Lab-Grown-Meat Startup Upside Foods - I think my favorite part of this article was Upside’s interim head of communications disputing the rumor that they don't use a "tiny squeegee" to scrape a layer of cells during the tissue production process they use a "custom-made spatula". Jokes aside, this is a pretty grim inside look at the status of cultivated meat by 1 of the U.S. companies that have recently received regulatory approval. Basically, current and former employees have gone on record saying that Upside is telling the public one story of their current cultivated meat production process, one that uses bioreactors to produce whole tissues when they are actually using 2-litter roller bottles in a tedious, small-scale process. A former employee who worked on roller bottle production also shared that lab techs add porcine (pig) gelatin inside roller bottles to help cells stick to the flask, later adding hormones, sugars, and other nutrients. Upside’s FDA safety dossier There was no mention of this being synthetic or animal-free gelatin, which is disheartening for an industry that wants to promote animal welfare and take animals out of meat production. Upside did respond to WIRED letting them know their reporting contained factual inaccuracies but according to the article, they didn't get more specific. Upside has also announced a new large-scale commercial production plant in Illinois.
California Leads the Way in Low-Carbon School Meals - The director of nutrition services for the Santa Ana Unified School District was motivated by the 2021 IPCC report to offer a fully plant-based lunch once per week. According to EPA-guided calculations, the district has reduced its climate impact by 1,300 tons per year. School lunches are regulated by the USDA which sets the nutrition standards and requirements, like having cow dairy milk available daily. This article showcases efforts by other school districts across the country.
Moving beyond outrage about cultural appropriation - Your semi-regular reminder to subscribe to
by ! I started engaging with the topic of food cultural appropriation in my early college years when I did a research project on defining “Jewish food”. I’m very much in agreement with Anisha that the discourse tends to be circular and more about outrage. This essay talks about it from a different lens, focused instead on, “why certain ingredients and recipes from the Global South reach mainstream wellness in the West, while others are left behind.”
What I’ve Listened To
Aubrey and Michael go over the term “soy boys” and how eating tofu, or just not eating meat, basically became an alt-right dogwhistle for men perceived to be effeminate and not conforming to the conservative conceptualization of masculinity.
Jessica Wilson M.S., R.D. did an incredible job letting UCSF’s Dr. Robert Lustig. Dr. Lustig share his whacky ideas about processed foods. Like specifically how he thinks that eating nothing is apparently better for metabolic health than eating processed foods like Chef Boyardee, plant-based meat alternatives, or drinking a soda. Beware, you may want to break your phone into a million pieces after listening to this episode.
Q&Kay
Q: How do you feel about the notion that fake meat products aren't good, but only because there is already food that is not meat that is good? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not interested in eating faux meat products, but only because I know there is food that is not meat that is delicious and good. I think efforts should be made to making those options more available and sustainable rather than to making fake meat. What are your thoughts on this?
K: *Wipes the crumbs from my lunch of Impossible chicken nuggets off my fingers before beginning to type.*
Personally, I feel quite icky when we qualify any food with binary language; good or not good, healthy or unhealthy, sustainable or unsustainable. It’s typically a reductionist and unrealistic qualification that overlooks so many of the social, cultural, scientific, and political factors that are inextricably linked to food.
You are absolutely right, there are lots of foods that are not derived from animals or their secretions that are good! But this would have been true before vegan meat alternatives became more mainstream. Whole grains, legumes, pulses, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and nuts have been with us since the beginning of humans and our predecessors and there were centuries where many (but not all) groups of people sustained themselves on mostly plants. Yet as the industrialized, western culture (was forcibly) spread across the world consumption of animals became more accessible, available, and coveted. Yes soy-based meats have also been around for centuries, but they have yet to go as mainstream, globally, as animal meats.
I don’t believe the industrialized vegan food system, modeled after the traditional food system which relies on increasing our consumption behaviors, is a savior for animals, public health, or the environment. I don’t see how pumping out more products without reducing or replacing existing products will reduce the number of animals raised for slaughter or reduce the environmental toll of our food system. Our version of capitalism has proven that it does not exist to make foods available or sustainable. And I recognize that “Fake meat” is just one strategy trying to change the food system, others are reducing our animal consumption, reindigenizing the food system, eating more whole food plant-based items, restructuring our agricultural subsidies, etc. It would be wonderful if people had more access to non-meat foods and the opportunities and ability to cook and enjoy them. I’m excited by and supportive of programs and initiatives working towards this goal.
And I love that you find enjoyment in non-meat products and hope you have the continued circumstance to access, cook, eat, digest, and enjoy the foods you like!
As always, you can submit a question for a future Q&Kay here!
Kvetch Sesh
I have been sitting with this Washington Post article The food industry pays 'influencer' dietitians to shape your eating habits since it broke and have had an interesting time seeing some of the reactions it has caused while formulating my own opinion. Maybe I'm too involved in the niche world of nutrition, social media, and the food industry, but I have a hard time believing this "little-known tactic the multibillion-dollar food and beverage industry is using to sway consumers..." is in fact, little-known.
My skepticism of industry influence runs deep, as it's evident how much private industries control the U.S. government through lobbying and trade associations. Over decades this influence, in the form of channeling billions of dollars toward cozying up to healthcare workers, direct-to-consumer advertisements, funding scientific studies, and shaping public policy, has had damaging consequences on public and personal health. The food, beverage, and dietary supplement industries do use predatory marketing strategies, like paying dietitians for their influence. These companies are also paying fitness and lifestyle influencers, celebrities, food bloggers, and other healthcare professionals to push corporate messages and lend their versions of credibility to get people to purchase products. I am in full agreement with the point that dietitians, and other content creators, should clearly disclose content they are paid for, as mandated by the FTC.
But what non-scientific or nutrition professionals may not know is that the broader scientific community often falls short in disclosing conflicts of interest and funding sources. Much of the nutrition information we consider true has its roots in research funded by food companies, and the claim that this funding has no impact on research outcomes is a pervasive but dubious notion. For a comprehensive exploration of this topic, Marion Nestle's Unsavory Truth is an excellent read. Nestle herself had a critical reaction to the Washington Post story this week, particularly concerning the evasive response from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. With all due respect to Dr. Nestle and the other critics of influencer dietitians, I think we’re severely overlooking some much-needed nuance.
Before I delve deeper I want to reiterate that, I'm not attempting to trivialize the issue or employ whataboutism to undermine the fact that industry using the scientific community as a marketing channel is a problem. As someone with personal experience in food systems research, nutrition academia, content creation, and food industry marketing, I feel uniquely positioned to understand and comment on the complexities of this discussion. What I found deeply troubling about this article was the myopic focus on the business of “influencer dietitians” without acknowledging the fact that dietitians are people navigating the same capitalist hellscape as the rest of us. They have little power to change industry standards or thwart the actions of multibillion-dollar global conglomerates. While dietitians are open to critique, the burden of shame and skepticism should be placed on the industry and systems that have normalized these activities rather than individuals trying to survive within them.
Now, let’s remind ourselves what it takes to become a registered dietitian nutritionist (RD or RDN). As of January 1, 2024, RDs in the U.S. will be required to obtain a master's degree, complete 1,000 hours of supervised practice, pass a national exam, meet state requirements, and earn annual continuing education credits. The average debt for Bachelor’s degrees in “Foods, Nutrition, and Related Services, is $25,152, and for a Master’s degree in “Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences, Other” it’s $44,598. However, most full-time dietetic internship programs are unpaid, some may offer meager stipends, and interns are expected to bear the burden of housing and personal living costs. Let’s look at UCSF as an example of a rare internship program with a stipend. UCSF Health Dietetic Interns receive a pre-tax annual stipend of $29,443 and a $13 daily allotment for meals at hospital cafes when on duty. Interns who are lucky enough to match with UCSF are receiving approximately $15/hour. San Francisco recently raised its minimum wage to $18.07 and the hourly living wage for an adult with no children in San Francisco is $26.63. So I’m not shocked that many of Google’s top hits when searching for information on the costs of dietetic internships are articles offering ideas for dietetic students and interns to generate some income— if their program permits it. Many of the ideas revolve around growing their social media presence, monetizing a bog, and getting sponsored for content.
The financial outlook beyond undergrad and internship years doesn’t offer much hope. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data from May 2022, the average hourly wage for dietitians and nutritionists is $33.34, with an annual salary of $69,350. However, in high-cost states like California and New York, which have the highest concentrated employment level of dietitians and nutritionists in the country, the cost of living significantly outpaces these earnings. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics reports that RDNs in business, management, education, and research can earn incomes above $90,000; however, BLS data that shows the industries with the highest levels and concentration of employment are healthcare settings, like outpatient care centers and nursing care facilities, and specialty food services.
This exploitative financial model makes more sense when you look at the demographics of dietetics. According to a 2020 survey, 92% of members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics are female (their word choice not mine or one I support) 80% are white. Even within this women-dominated field, the gender wage gap persists. While the research I could find about dietetics specifically is limited, one study showed that there is a median wage gap of $4,965 between dietitians who are women and men. We know that within the gender wage gap, women of color are disproportionately affected, and can assume the same is true within dietetics. This is one of many areas within dietetics where normative whiteness is an issue and further marginalizes non-white people.
I was a nutrition science major for half of college, worked in research, got a master's degree (alongside many brilliant people who are now RDNs), and am intimately familiar with what it's like to work in food service and build a social media presence in addition to being a full-time student with an internship. It's fucking hard. I'm still drowning in student loans, I've had inconsistent employment in the 3 years since I finished graduate school, with only one short-lived position that offered me a salary and benefits. I have not monetized my social media accounts because contrary to popular belief, that takes a lot of effort. I get 2-3 emails a day offering me gifted products in exchange for content or opportunities for low-paying sponsored posts that aren't worth the time it would take to respond to their emails. My professional opportunities, most of which have largely resulted from my social media presence, have been with CPG food brands and other food companies.
This brings me to another point stemming from arguments made in the article that the authors could have followed to its logical conclusion; the ethical ramifications faced by dietitians and nutritionists working directly for food and beverage companies. Are these in-house dietitians not performing similar functions to influencer dietitians who promote sugary snacks and beverages? A quick search of LinkedIn showed me an RDN who works, "in Nutrition Strategy & Communications supporting biscuits, chocolate, gum, and candy categories. Focused on providing brand support and direction, developing internal education programs, and driving well-being initiatives." While it's crucial to advocate for more dietitians and qualified nutrition professionals in the industry, the inherent conflict of interest in such roles cannot be ignored. I think it is incredibly important for more dietitians and qualified nutrition professionals to have opportunities in the industry to stand up for personal and public health; however, their employment will always come with an agenda and their credentials will always make the company optics look better than the company's products and activities.
In focusing on individual dietitians' social media posts more than the actions of food conglomerates and trade associations, the article missed the opportunity to shed light on how the industry shapes our dietary guidelines and nutrition policies. This was an opportunity to raise our awareness of these issues and direct our collective outrage and frustration toward the systemic problems and inequities that perpetuate them. Instead, they called out dietitians like Shana Minei Spence MS, RDN, CDN for her audacity to eat pizza and french fries and destimatize processed foods on her social media platforms.
The food industry's influence on healthcare and scientific research is a complex issue that requires more transparency. While I remain skeptical about the possibility of achieving complete transparency or preventing bias, it is our responsibility to question the role of industry in healthcare, scientific research, and social media and demand clear disclosures of funding, sponsorship, and potential influences while advocating for an overhaul of the system that is dependent upon industry dollars. This call for transparency also applies to the shirtless and barefoot men in grocery stores shouting at their phones about the dangers of seed oils who are selling their supplements at the link in their YouTube bio. It also goes for journalists, like consumer health and wellness writer Anahad O’Connor, an author of this Washington Post article, who wrote books like Lose It! for the weight loss application Lose It! and The 10 Things You Need to Eat, which guides consumers on an unintimidating approach to Super Foods.
Another throwback to Ginny during our first week together— it’s like a reward (for reading the entire newsletter)!
This post contains Bookshop affiliate links, I make a small percentage of any purchases you make using my links. You can see my other reading recommendations here.
P.S. A little bird told me you can read the article referenced in my kvetch sesh without a paywall https://archive.ph/xpzHF
Thanks for another great issue!