A walnut protein hydrolysate administered to rats exposed to ultraviolet radiation significantly reduced skin photoaging and enhanced skin elasticity. Supplementation with ellagic acid, a compound found in many berries, prevented ultraviolet B -related inflammation and collagen degradation related to skin wrinkling and aging in a murine model. More human studies, using objective measures of skin wrinkles, skin elasticity and response to low-dose UVB radiation exposure are warranted. Monitoring skin responses to a UVB radiation challenge has been used as a marker of whole-body antioxidant status in response to almond consumption. The response to a UVB challenge has also been used to monitor oxidant defenses and changes in skin microbiome following the intake of pomegranate juice .Age-related macular degeneration is the third leading cause of vision loss worldwide. Anthocyanins, carotenoids, flavonoids, and vitamins C and E, found in many berries, have been shown to reduce risk of eye-related diseases. Goji berries, containing the highest amount of zeaxanthin of any known food, hold particular promise since this compound binds to receptors in the macula to offer protection from blue and ultraviolet light. Regular supplementation with 28 g/d of goji berries for 3 mo increased macular pigment optical density, a biomarker for AMD, as well as the skin carotenoid index. Nuts may also be protective against AMD since they are a rich source of vitamin E and essential fatty acids. Regular intake of nuts has been associated with a reduced risk and slower progression of AMD in 2 epidemiological studies, thought to be due to the beneficial role of polyunsaturated fatty acids .Identification of new cultivars with traits desirable for growers, processors,square plastic plant pot and consumers is a continuous effort. As researchers continue to produce new varieties by both conventional and molecular-driven approaches, assessing these varieties for nutritional value is a challenge.
A combination of broad targeted and untargeted metabolomic approaches, along with defined functional phenotyping could be used for rapid screening and defining of mechanistic pathways associated with health. However, consumer preferences for new cultivars are often driven by size and appearance of the berry or nut and flavor, rather than its nutritional value. This would further confirm the need to balance improvements to nutritional profiles with enhancement of consumer-driven traits, maintaining the marketable nature of the berries and nuts.Although the USDA competitive grants program offers funding for outstanding research projects, budget limitations favor animal or in vitro study proposals. Compelling pilot data is needed to be competitive for clinical studies funded by the USDA or NIH, so many researchers submit their initial ideas to commodity groups representing specific nuts or berries. Commodity groups represent farmers, processors, and distributors and have been instrumental in supporting fundamental and applied research focused on their specific berry or nut. The perception that studies funded by nut and berry commodity groups are inherently biased in favor of the test food is an issue sometimes raised by critics, journalists, and the general public. As in all nutrition research, ethical considerations regarding the structure of research questions, hypotheses, study design, outcome measures, interpretation of data, and conclusions must be rigorously considered. The food and beverage industries have played a key role in providing funds and supporting nutrition research on individual foods and beverages, including berries and nuts. Although this draws scrutiny regarding scientific integrity and data reporting, collaboration between academia and industry compared to exclusive corporate funding may help offset some of these concerns. For example, in multiple reported studies, matching funds were also provided by non-industry sources, including institutional and federal agencies.
In other cases, while the food industry provided the test agents, key research personnel and staff were not supported by the same funding source. The academia-industry collaboration has also led to the formation of scientific advisory committees that evaluate and recommend proposals for funding, a peer review process that helps ensure rigorous study designs, data reporting, and dissemination of results. Human studies of sufficient statistical power are expensive, labor-intensive efforts requiring sophisticated and costly laboratory equipment and supplies. In order for research proposals to be competitive for funding from the USDA or NIH, pilot data is required, and for nuts and berries, the only realistic source of funding for these exploratory trials is from industry sources. Critics of industry support for nutrition research have yet to propose realistic alternatives for funding needed to generate initial data. Further, ongoing industry funding of nuts and berries research has yielded important insights into the molecular and physiological understanding of mechanisms of action. Without industry support, provided in an ethical and transparent manner, advances in our understanding of the role of nuts and berries in a healthy dietary pattern would be limited. A risk-of-bias study of 5675 journal articles used in systematic reviews published between 1930 and 2015, representing a wide variety of nutrition topics, concluded that ROB domains started to significantly decrease after 1990, and particularly after 2000. Another study examined the incidence of favorable outcomes reported in studies funded by the food industry in the 10 most-cited nutrition and dietetics journals in 2018 . Of the 1461 articles included in the analysis, 196 reported industry support, with processed food and dietary supplement manufacturers supporting 68% of the studies included. Studies supported by any nut or berry commodity group were not considered due to an incidence lower than 3% of qualifying articles. Studies with food industry support reported favorable results in 56% of their articles, compared to 10% of articles with no industry involvement. The authors offer a number of suggestions to help minimize real or perceived bias, calling on research institutions to enforce strict, regularly updated, and transparent oversight of all research projects involving industry. Suggestions in support of research transparency and integrity have also been advanced from guidelines adapted from the International Life Sciences Institute North America. This served as the basis for the development of consensus guiding principles for public-private partnerships developed by a group of representatives from academia, scientific societies and organizations, industry scientists, and the USDA, NIH, US Centers for Disease Control, and the US Food and Drug Administration.
These provisions include full disclosure of funding and confirmation of no direct industry involvement in the study design, data and statistical analyses, and interpretation of the results and only minimal, if any, involvement of industry coauthor, often given as a courtesy to acknowledge funding and logistical support by the investigators with no intellectual involvement by the study sponsor. This is in contrast to industry-initiated research, where the industry office or commodity group sets predetermined research objectives, provides intellectual collaboration, and often has input on the study design, interpretation of results, and decisions regarding publication. Although some critics may argue that repeated industry funding in support of research groups that report favorable results on a particular nut or berry shows a bias toward positive outcomes, other interpretations are also possible. First, few labs have the infrastructure, detailed methodology and analytical equipment, and trained personnel to conduct clinical studies in an efficient and timely manner. Industry funded studies conducted at major universities have layers of review and accountability within their organizations to guard against malfeasance, and while these layers may not focus directly on precise elements of research design and interpretation of results, faculty members at such institutions generally have a level of integrity and accountability, knowing that administrative review exists. Calls for industry-funded research are often broad in scope, which allows researchers to generate proposals, research questions, and hypotheses that do not have preconceived outcomes. A third consideration is that the nuts or berries under study may simply have sufficient bio-activity to produce favorable outcomes, independent of potential researcher bias.California’s government-mandated marketing programs covered commodities accounting for over $21.18 billion of California crop and livestock production in 2004. While the framework for these marketing programs is set by legislation,25 liter square pot the specific provisions are proposed by producers, approved by the secretary of agriculture or the legislature and governor , and enacted by a super majority vote of producers covered by the program’s provisions. Once enacted, all producers are subject to program provisions and all must pay assessments to cover program costs, with enforcement based on the police and taxing powers of government. This paper reviews the nature, importance, extent and changing use of common program provisions for mandated marketing programs utilized by California producers, and the development of new research, promotion and information initiatives. Not included in the data tables are California producers’ participation in federal promotion programs, commonly referred to as national check-off programs, nor activities of the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Dairy Branch in administering and enforcing provisions of the California Milk Marketing Order. In 2004, mandated marketing programs covered California commodities ranging from 96.6% of the value of fruit and nut production to 8.3% of nursery and floral production .
As of June 2006, California’s 63 active marketing programs included 11 federal marketing orders, 29 state marketing orders and agreements, 20 commissions, and 3 councils . Since then the Pistachio Commission has been terminated by an industry vote, and a California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement has been approved to certify the safe handling, shipment and sale of leafy green products to consumers . Individual commodity marketing programs have been terminated, consolidated and initiated in response to changing marketing issues, with the total number increasing over time. Notable trends have been a decrease in the number of federal marketing orders applicable to California crops and an increase in the number of commodity commissions. More than half of these programs have been established since 1980. In addition, 12 commodity commissions have been established since 1990, with several replacing marketing orders. While all mandated marketing programs are subject to government approval and oversight, commissions and councils tend to enjoy the most autonomy. Mandated marketing programs can include one or more provisions for research, minimum quality standards, regulation of packaging and containers, quantity controls, and/or generic advertising and promotion. Generic, as contrasted with brand advertising and promotion, speaks to general commodity characteristics rather than referring to a specific producer, brand name or processor. The purpose of generic programs is to increase the total demand for a commodity , while brand programs seek to increase market share . Federal and state marketing orders established during the 1930s and 1940s emphasized the use of supply controls to improve prices. Now the provisions that are most often used by federal programs are minimum grades and sizes, pack and container regulations, research and generic promotion. Likewise, the emphasis of state marketing orders has shifted, with more than three-quarters of California programs including provisions for generic promotion and research by 1960. In addition, California commodity commissions emphasizing promotion and research have taken the place of many state marketing orders.While producer support for promotion programs is strong, it is not unanimous, and litigation over mandatory assessments for advertising and promotion has been essentially continuous since the 1980s. The majority of lawsuits have been filed by large growers for various reasons, including philosophical opposition to government interference in marketing their products, a belief that they could obtain a better return promoting their own brand, and basic disagreements with the promotion message or operation of the program. Three cases concerning the constitutionality of generic promotion programs have been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court . In the 1997 case of Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled that federally mandated generic advertising for California peaches, plums and nectarines did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In the five-to-four ruling, the Court noted that the business entities that are compelled to fund generic advertising do so as part of a broader collective enterprise in which the freedom to act independently is already constrained by the regulatory scheme. This ruling seemed to take much of the legal pressure off generic promotion programs, until a contrary decision was issued in 2001. In U.S. v. United Foods, the Supreme Court ruled that the national Mushroom Promotion Act of 1990 violated the First Amendment. This ruling set off a flood of litigation against other promotion programs, with lower courts striking down a number of them. Then, in 2005 the Supreme Court agreed to hear a third promotion program case on an Eighth Circuit Court ruling that the national beef checkoff program was unconstitutional. In Livestock Marketing Association v. USDA, the Supreme Court ruled that the national beef check-off program is constitutional.