I subscribe to Beverage Daily, an industry publication, to learn about current trends I might otherwise miss.

I hadn’t been paying much attention to the alchohol-free trend, other than to notice the astonishing rise in the number of flavored water options in supermarkets.

With the new dietary guidelines arguing for less alcohol, this is a trend worth watching.

Here is a good place to begin:

Five emerging trends in the alcohol-free category: January puts the spotlight on alcohol-free drinks. What has this month taught us about the direction of the category in 2026 ?… Read more

The discussion of the five trends is aimed at beverage companies trying to sell products.

• Sober-curious consumers are complicated, meaning they want to try lots of drinks.
• They “zebra-stripe” (a new term to me), meaning they alternate between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks in the same occasion.
• Beverage companies need to come up with innovate ways to attract customers.
• Non-alcoholic drinks should be functional (meaning containing something that can do something special) to attract customers.
• Companies need to find new ways to attract customers to their brands.

Judging from what I’m seeing at supermarkets, introducing a new beverage is not going to be easy.  There are already loads of options out there.

Here are a couple of additional items on the alcohol-free trend:

• The most popular alcohol-free brands in the US this month, according to search data: Tracking January’s search data reveals the rising stars in the US alcohol-free category…… Read more
• Drinking less but drinking better: Understanding the moderation movement: Consumers want to be healthier; so they’re cutting back on alcohol. But is it really that simple?… Read more
• Alcohol-free beverages become part of the wellness diet:  From Dry January to everyday routines, alcohol-free beverages are integrating into wellness diets with functional, mood-enhancing ingredients… Read more
• IFT’s Food Technology: That’s the (Zero-Proof) Spirit: The worldwide movement to reduce alcohol consumption is inspiring a creative and technological revolution in zero-proof spirits and mocktails with an expanding array of ingredients, from whiskey and gin alternatives to tropical fruits and botanicals.Read More
• How GLP-1 drugs are playing into the alcohol moderation trend: The last decade has seen a steady decline in alcohol consumption. GLP-1 drugs add a new dimension… Read more 
• Building the best alcohol-free brands: The next step in the category’s evolution:  Brand loyalty in the alcohol-free category is still low. That means its all to play for……
• 5 things we’ve learned about the alcohol-free category this January: January is the month when alcohol-free drinks really have the chance to shine. What have we learned about the direction of the category in 2026?… Read more
• Dry January is dead. Long live intentional drinking:  Elimination has evolved into moderation and it’s a preview of how changing consumer preferences affect year-round demand for alcohol and non-alcohol brands alike.

In my post last week, “The government is actively promoting meat and dairy intake,” I said

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

I then noted that this government takes promotion to new levels through its milk mustache ads and pronouncements that we have ended the war on protein (protein has long been understood as a euphemism for meat).

I ended with this comment: “I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.”

Whew.  Did that ever get a response.

Readers raised two issues:

I.  The guidelines and inverted pyramid give equal weight to plant foods.

That’s not how I read them.  I see them as giving lip service to plants but prioritizing meat.  They visually present meat most prominently in the interactive graphic at realfood.gov.  Subsequent statements of the USDA and HHS secretaries also support this view.  And then there are the authors with financial links to beef industry groups who wrote the scientific reports relevent to meat.

II. This is not about meat industry lobbying; it is about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s ideology.  Well, yes.  That too.  “Ideology” refers to belief systems that structure views of the world.  Everybody has them.

I, for example, am ideologically in favor of the dietary guidelines’ advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed food, but ideologically opposed to advice to prioritize animal protein over plant protein.  I would argue that the vast preponderance of research supports that view.

People holding other ideological views disagree, evidently.  They pick different studies to read and come to different conclusions.

Two members of the nine people writing scientific reviews for the guidelines assure me that their reviews are unbiased.  But those reviews invariably reflect the ideology of the people who wrote them.

As I often point out, nutrition research is impossible to control rigorously, unless you lock people up for extended periods of time.  That is why the best controlled studies, those done in monitored metabolic wards, can only be done for a few weeks at most.  Diets are complicated; eaters are complicated; research is complicated.  Complicated research requires interpretation.  Interpretation depends on the interpreter’s particular ideology.

That is why appointing a diverse committee to look at research questions has its benefits; people with differing ideologies have to work out points of agreement.

I will say this for RFK, Jr.  He makes his ideology clear.  It prioritizes personal experience over science.

My ideology: We need science to distinguish anecdote from fact.

Let’s agree that on the meat priority issue, RFK Jr’s ideology fits well with meat industry objectives.

The meat industry has a long history of lobbying around dietary guidelines (see my book, Food Politics).

I have not seen specific reports of meat industry lobbying around the new dietary guidelines.  Apparently, no lobbying was necessary.

HHS issued a press release last week: FDA takes New Approach to “No Artificial Colors” Claims

Companies will now have flexibility to claim products contain ‘no artificial colors’ when the products do not contain petroleum-based colors. In the past, companies were generally only able to make such claims when their products had no added color whatsoever — whether derived from natural sources or otherwise. The agency sent a letter to industry providing notice of the FDA’s intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to these voluntary labeling claims.

..Additionally, the agency today also approved beetroot red, a new color option, and approved the expanded use of spirulina extract, an existing color additive derived from a natural source…This brings the total number of new food color options approved under the current administration to six.

…Ongoing progress in removing petroleum-based colors from the food supply is being publicly tracked by the FDA at Tracking Food Industry Pledges to Remove Petroleum Based Food Dyes.

Natural colors are generally extracted from vegetables, spices, or insects.  They go through industrial processing to extract the pigments and stabilize them.  (A series of videos explains the processes)

Are natural colors healthier?  They might be.  They are not associated with behavioral problems in children.

Are they safer?  Possibly, but they are not as well studied or regulated.  According to Time,

…their natural sources of color do not necessarily mean that they are safer or free of potentially harmful compounds. Natural sources may be treated with pesticides and herbicides, and are also prone to contamination with bacteria and other pathogens…To strip natural products of these contaminants, manufacturers process them with various solvents—some of which could remain in the final coloring and contribute to negative health effects…[and] it generally takes more natural color than synthetic color to make the same shade in a final food.

One additional point: color additives—regardless of source—are an indicator of ultra-processing.

Candy and cereals made with colors extracted from natural sources will still be ultra-processed.

The purpose of food colors—no matter their source—is entirely cosmetic.  They make foods look more appealing and appear to taste better. That’s why the food industry loves added colors.

Removing the more vibrant and more stable petroleum-based colors may reduce sales.

Will doing so Make America Healthy Again?  We shall see.

I guess I have to say something about the Super Bowl ads.

Much as I am in favor of eating real food and reducing ultra-processed foods, I was trained in science.  I would never go as far as this astonishing Super Bowl ad featuring Mike Tyson.

The scientist in me says yes, diets high in ultra-processed foods promote poor health and raise the risk of chronic disease and overall mortality, but no single food or food category is going to do that alone.

The sociologist in me appreciates that Mike Tyson has a powerful redemption story: His sister died at 25 from a heart attack caused by obesity, he has a weight problem, is now a vegan, and is atoning for his conviction as a rapist.

Coming from him, “Processed Food Kills” and “Eat Real Food” are powerful messages.

The Super Bowl venue ensures that they will reach a wide audience.

MAHA endorses these messages.  Even on taxicabs.

So do food advocates, although some of us wish so much of the burden of healthy eating did not fall on individuals.  As I like to put it, trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment means that you are fighting an entire food system on your own.

Michael Jacobson, former founding director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest adds:

Another ad that will run during the Super Bowl is an amusing Pepsi ad that attacks Coke. That ad immediately reminded me of CSPI’s classic The Real Bears video (almost 3 million views!) that used polar bears to attack Coke (but did not promote Pepsi!).

How much to Super Bowl ads cost?

A minimum of $8 million.  Why are they worth it?  See this contextual analysis: shared experience.

Who paid the $8 million for this one?  The MAHA Center, according to this analysis.

Think of that when you watch the other food ads, courtesy of the New York Times.

And then there’s this.  MAHA sure does have a terrific graphic designer.  If only calories didn’t matter…

A reader, Harish Chintakunta, sent this suggestion for one of my Monday posts on conflicted science.

Subject: UC Davis Methane Summit—A Case Study in Industry-Framed Science?

Dear Dr. Nestle,

…UC Davis hosted a “State of the Science Summit on Reducing Methane from Animal Agriculture” (link). While the summit was billed as scientific, it was organized by institutions with strong financial ties to the livestock industry. Unsurprisingly, the most effective methane reduction strategy—phasing out animal agriculture—was not mentioned.

Instead, the narrative centered on sustaining and expanding animal production, framed as essential for global nutrition which you very well know is not supported by science. The result was less a discussion of science and more a reinforcement of corporate priorities, masquerading as objectivity.

I believe this event is a powerful example of how public institutions can unintentionally (or otherwise) advance industry agendas while sidelining viable alternatives. Your perspective on this would carry tremendous weight.

Methane emissions from cattle are greenhouse gases that strongly contribute to global warming.  The livestock industry would like to reduce methane if it can.  UC Davis, the University of California’s land grant campus, has long provided research to support the state’s industrial producers.  Its scientists recently found that feeding seaweed to cattle can reduce methane emissions.

I looked at the agenda for the 2025 conference.  It appears at first glance to be quite well balanced.  Speakers come from industry, but also from academia and at least one environmental organization.   Several speakers come from the Global Methane Hub, which funds methane-reduction programs; the Hub is sponsored by a variety of industry- and privately funded foundations.

Without having been there, I have no way of knowing whether anyone at this meeting talked about how people and the planet would be healthier eating less meat.  As far as I can tell, no representatives of the EAT-Lancet Commission, which promotes a less-meat Planetary Health Diet, were listed as speakers.

So Mr. Chintakunta is correct: by focusing this meeting on reduction of methane emissions from cattle, rather than on methane emissions in general, it avoids having to deal with the inconvenient truth that eating less meat—which would be bad for the meat business—would be a lot better for planetary health.

Food and nutrition education is hard to come by these days.  As Laura Reiley wrote in Civil Eats,

The end of SNAP-Ed leaves underserved communities with even fewer resources.  The One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the program in July, giving program administrators 90 days to dismantle a nationwide network of nutrition classes and outreach efforts.

You would think that educating SNAP recipients about choices and cooking methods would be good for everyone, but no such luck.

Some groups are trying to fill the gap.  Alex DeSorbo-Quinn, the Executive Director of Pilot Light Chefs, sent me a press release 

 Pilot Light today announced the release of its updated Food Education Standards, the first-ever comprehensive framework for integrating Food Education into PreK-12 classrooms. The revised standards build on five years of real-world implementation by educators across the United States and expand access to include PreK students for the first time.

…The 2025 edition of the Food Education Standards:

• Incorporate greater diversity in food system expertise, ensuring all students see themselves reflected in Food Education.
• Reflect best practices in teaching and learning based on five years of classroom implementation.
• Include competencies tailored to PreK students for greater accessibility and early childhood engagement.

Here’s an example of competency #4: Food behaviors are influenced by external and internal factors for grades 6-8 (I can’t get the resolution higher, sorry):

The standards come with suggestions for activities designed to meet them.

For anyone teaching K-12, this ought to be useful.

It also should be useful to anyone who has a K-12 kid.

If I counted right, the FDA oversaw 17 recalls of pet food and animal feed in 2025.

The causes included Salmonella, Listeria, aflatoxin, bird flu, plastics, and “presence of particulate matter”

Not yet on that list is an even more serious case involving Darwin’s raw pet food (thanks to  Phyllis Entis for writing and sending) : Darwin’s raw pet food linked to human case of E. coli O157:H7 in four-year-old child.

The contamination came to light after food-safety attorney, William Marler, initiated third-party testing of an previously unopened package of BioLogics All-Natural and Grain Free, Beef Recipe for Dogs found E. coli O157:H7 in the raw, frozen product. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) confirmed that the strain found in the pet food was a match for the strain recovered from the child.

In addition to the E. coli O157:H7-positive sample, the third-party lab recovered Salmonella Infantis and Salmonella Hadar from previously sealed packages of Darwin’s chicken dog food and duck dog food, respectively.

This example is notable for two reasons.  The company refused to recall the products (recalls are voluntary) and continued to sell contaminated food:

Darwin’s pet food tests positive for Listeria and Salmonella: The FDA has again found bacterial contamination in Darwin’s Natural Pet Products dog food and the producing company, Arrow Reliance, is again refusing to recall its products.Read more 

As I keep insisting, pet food is not a separate entity; it is part and parcel of the food supply for humans.  Contaminated pet food can and does infect pet owners and their children.   It is made from the same foods that go into the human food supply and is an early warning of problems to come (hence my book, Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine)

That is why safety and other pet food issues are well worth tracking.

SAFETY

• APHA reveals Salmonella findings in animals and pet food: Reports of Salmonella in raw meat-based pet food in the United Kingdom have declined again from the record levels seen in 2022.The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) collected data on Salmonella from animals, feeding stuff and animal by-products (ABP) in England, Wales and Scotland.Read
• Dog food, treats linked to Salmonella outbreak in Canada: The Canadian government reports 27 confirmed cases across four provinces connected to handling various dog food products. Read more
• Dog Food Recalled Nationwide Due to Bacterial Contamination: FDA: North Carolina-based Viva Raw said the recalled dog and cat foods were contaminated with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

INGREDIENTS

• Report: China dominates critical vitamin, amino acid supplies: New IFEEDER research reveals U.S. dependence on Chinese-produced feed additives essential for animal nutrition and food security. Read more
• Shark-based pet snacks rising in popularity, include regulated species: DNA barcoding of shark-based pet treats in Thailand identified eight species of shark. Biologists have classified many of those species as near threatened, while also under international trade regulations. Read more
• Good fatty acids boosted by BSFL insect protein in dog food: Nevermind humans, dogs didn’t need to be convinced of insect-based pet foods’ value. In preference testing, dogs showed no significant difference in consumption between traditional and insect-based diets. Read more
• Tesco issues urgent recall over contaminated dog food fears: The retailer has issued an urgent recall notice after a foreign body contamination was detected in Lily’s Kitchen branded dog food cans…. Read more

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

But the current government takes this new levels.

Here are the Secretaries of HHS and USDA:

More on the milk mustache campaign here, here, here, and here.

And how about RFK Jr’s birthday celebration:

Earlier, in 2025, USDA announced its plan to “fortify the American beef industry.”

• USDA Action: USDA FNS is encouraging schools, sponsors, and institutions participating in any USDA Child Nutrition Programs (CNP) to source and serve locally grown foods, including beef, in program meals.,,,These efforts will improve access to local foods, including high-quality meat, for American students, and will improve child health and nutrition and reinvigorate American livestock producers by better connecting them with USDA’s Child Nutrition Programs.
• USDA Action: Together with HHS, ensure the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) reflect sound science and practical advice for the American family, including encouraging protein as the foundation for every meal.

Comment

I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.  Fruit and vegetable growers (“specialty crops”) do not have this kind of clout.  Will eating more meat and dairy foods Make America Healthy Again?  That seems highly unlikely.  In my reading of the evidence, we—and the planet—would be healthier getting more of our calories from plant foods.I