If you want to know why school food is so controversial, and improving its nutrition quality is so difficult, follow the money.

A reader, Jennifer Windh, says she is a mom of a second grader in Texas (Tomball School District) and a member of “Make Texans Healthy Again.”  She tells me she asked ChatGPT to summarize information about food lobbying on the new school food rules:

I’ve been tracking USDA’s forthcoming proposed rule updating the Child Nutrition Programs to align with the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (RIN 0584-AF17). USDA sent the proposed rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review on July 20, and USDA’s regulatory agenda currently targets publication in September.

While the proposed rule itself is not yet public, OIRA’s public meeting records give us some clues about what may be under consideration. Outside groups can request meetings with OIRA while a significant regulation is under review, and OIRA publishes the identity of the groups, attendees, and materials they submit.

Much applause to Jennifer for digging into who is pushing OIRA about food and nutrition standards for school meals.

The table does not say what these participants were asking for, but let’s speculate.  The new dietary guidelines call for more real food, less highly processed food, and less sugar, but more protein, healthy fats, and whole milk dairy.

The trade associations want the USDA to require meals to have more of their products: rice, bread (not too much whole wheat), frozen foods, grains (preferably not whole), and meat.

The National CACFP (Child and Adult Care Food Program) Association advocates for this desperately underfunded program and surely is asking for more funding to comply with new DGA standards.

The Plant Powered groups want more plant foods and less meat and dairy.

The Urban School Food Alliance works with school districts to provide healthy food to low-income kids.  I’ll bet it’s asking for more funding too.

Of special interest is the position of the School Nutrition Association, which supposedly represents school food service workers.

It is heavily sponsored by food companies.   Its position on forthcoming rules is that

Any new rules limiting UPFs in schools must ensure meal programs are permitted to serve nutrient-dense, pre-prepared foods. Schools are simply not equipped to scratch prepare all menu items – more than 93% cited the need for more staff, culinary training, equipment and infrastructure to reduce reliance on UPFs.

To see what attempts to improve the nutritional quality of school meals are up against, take a look at the SNA’s talking points defending highly processed snack foods as well as sugary foods.

As it happens, a new analysis shows that basically all snack foods sold in schools are ultra-processed.

And another analysis of 10,000 school lunches, Beyond the Nugget: The Hidden Health Risks of Industrially Produced Animal Proteins—and the Path Toward Better School Lunchesfrom Friends of the Earth and Chef Ann Foundation, finds that they are “dominated by industrially produced meat and cheese, raising concerns about children’s exposure to known carcinogens, ingredients of concern and potentially undisclosed contaminants, including veterinary drug, dioxin and pesticide residues.”

The big questions:

• Will the calls for less ultra-processed food and sugar survive this kind of lobbying opposition?
• Will school meals get enough funding to do what the guidelines call for?

I can’t wait to find out.

I learned about this one from a press release: Natural trans fats in dairy do not raise heart disease risk.

Trans fats found naturally in dairy foods such as milk, butter and cheese do not increase the risk of heart disease or type 2 diabetes, a new study has found.

Who, I wondered, could possibly have paid for this study?

Bingo!

This research was funded by the National Dairy Council (USA). Several authors work for or receive funding from dairy interbranch or industry organisations.

I could see why the dairy industry would fund something like this.

Ruminants—cattle and dairy cows—naturally hydrogenate unsaturated fatty acids and convert them to trans fats, the bad kind that raise the risk of heart disease.

Meat and dairy producers would love to be able to show that naturally hydrogenated trans fats are healthier than those that are artificially hydrogenated.  Hence this study.

The study:  Gayet-Boyer, C., Tenenhaus-Aziza, F., Torres-Gonzalez, M., Givens, D.I., & Schweitzer, C. (2026). Trans fatty acids from dairy foods do not affect risk of cardiometabolic diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Nutrition Research, 150, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2026.03.009

Comment: Would independent scientists who demonstrated the harm of artificial trans fats find something different with ruminant trans fats?  I’d like to see those studies.

The industry newsletter, FoodNavigator, reports the top  international Big Food companies.

The full list is here.

Nestlé (no relation) is the clear winner.

Among the top 10, only Danone and Tyson report lower sales in 2026 than in 2025. I can only speculate about the reasons, but am guessing problems in the beef supply and reduced consumer demand as factors for Tyson, and maybe the infant formula recalls affected Danone?

It’s interesting that only four of these brands are in the U.S.  Actually, only three U.S. companies are involved since both Lay’s and Doritos are owned by PepsiCo.  Two companies are Swiss and two are Chinese.

Of special interest: Both Yili and Mengniu sell dairy products: milk, yogurt, ice cream, and cheese.  But almost all Chinese people have problems digesting lactose.

When I was in Beijing in 2019, I was told that the Chinese government wants its people to consume these foods in the belief that dairy products promote growth in children’s height.

If this list just looked at the U.S., Walmart would head the list.

Today is my 90th birthday, and this is my 5765th post on this site since starting it in 2007.

To quote the late Gloria Steinem, this is what 90 looks like.

Photo taken at Autumn Leaves Books, Ithaca, July 2026

As should be obvious, I have had a hugely fortunate life.

I was born into a poor family but came of age during the now-understood-to-be-unique period between the end of World War II and the election of Ronald Reagan.  Then, a university education was essentially free; I paid $32 per semester in fees to the University of California Berkeley.  Housing was affordable; the first house I bought cost $14,500.  Anyone with a modest academic salary could expect to lead a solid middle-class life.  And for women, doors were beginning to open.

I was in graduate school in the early 1960s, a time when we thought we were changing the world.  We were going to end the war in Vietnam, end poverty, obtain civil rights, get equity for women, protect the environment, end injustice, curb corporate power.  We could see these changes happening.  The future was going to be better, and for everyone.

That was my normal.  I had no idea how unusual that 30-year period would turn out to be, or how powerful the backlash against it.

I was lucky enough to find work—teaching, writing, speaking—that I found deeply engrossing, stimulating, and rewarding.  I still do.

As for my ability to continue to do these things?  Good nutrition, of course,  And even more luck.

My book, Food Politics, turns 25 next year and I recently submitted a new Preface and Afterword for its 25th anniversary edition (forthcoming, February 2027).

Here is how I ended the Afterword:

I am often asked how I remain hopeful in the light of the food industry’s power to control and corrupt government. My answer: the food movement. I see its effects everywhere. Healthier foods are more widely available than when Food Politics first appeared. Increasing numbers of people, old and young, care about food issues and want to improve the food system. Every place I travel, I see more schools serving healthier and better-tasting meals, more farmers’ markets, more young people wanting to farm, more concern about humane farm animal production, more backyard chickens and urban gardens, and more attention to local, seasonal, and sustainable food. Most gratifying, more people understand the politics. A quarter century ago, I could not use the word “capitalism” in class or lectures without turning off the room. Now when I talk about food system problems, someone invariably challenges me: “but aren’t you talking about capitalism?” Yes, I am, and late-stage capitalism at that.

When my NYU department started food studies programs in 1996, we were virtually alone.[i] Today, colleges and universities host food programs and courses in practically every department and unit, all teaching students how to think critically about—and engage in—the country’s most pressing economic, political, social, and health problems. Food issues are a lens into those problems. They are high on the agendas of local, state, national, and international governments. The media cover agriculture, food, and nutrition extensively and, as a reporter once told me, command so much national attention that food issues constitute a Full Employment Act.

I especially see hope at the grassroots level. Many communities are engaged in efforts to improve school meals, reduce childhood obesity, align agricultural production with health goals, and make healthier food more available and affordable for all. Advocates are increasingly learning and following well-established strategies for achieving social change. To the extent they do, they have a good chance at success.[ii]

Today’s challenge is to take advocacy to the national level. If I could wave a magic wand, here is what I would do to make healthy food choices more available, accessible, affordable, and desirable—the default—and not only in the United States.

• Conduct ongoing national education campaigns to promote healthful choices.
• Refocus agricultural production subsidies on food for people rather than feed for livestock animals and ethanol and diesel fuel for cars and airplanes.
• Increase taxes on unhealthful foods and support lower prices for healthful foods.
• Restrict marketing of unhealthful foods and promote marketing of healthful foods.
• Enact a universal basic income program so everyone can afford to eat healthfully.
• Enact a universal school meals program—with adequate funding—so all children have access to healthful breakfasts and lunches.
• Overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics.
• Reform Wall Street to require corporations to provide benefits to their workers, communities, and society as well as to stockholders.

These ideas may sound like pie in the sky, but I deeply believe that setting goals—even those that seem highly unattainable—is a useful public health strategy. Unrealistic goals can educate, expand expectations, promote critical thinking, motivate action, attract resources, and encourage accountability. Sometimes, with skill and luck, they can even be achieved.[iii] Efforts to create better and more equitable food systems are prime expressions of democracy in action—of the people, by the people, for the people. They are well worth engagement, advocacy, and activism, and deserve everyone’s support.

Notes

[i] Bentley A, Parasecoli F, Ray K, eds. Practicing Food Studies. New York: NYU Press, 2024.

[ii] Bobo KA, Max S, Bobo K, et al. Organizing for Social Change: Midwest Academy Manual for Activists. New York: Seven Locks Press, 2001.

[iii] Eyal N, Sjöstrand M. On knowingly setting unrealistic goals in public health. Am J Public Health 2020;110(4):480–484. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305428.

Yuka, the wildly popular (88 million users) supermarket app for analyzing food labels for nutritional value and health impact, has produced a terrific report: Ultra-Processed Foods: Decoding a Food Transformation with Major Health Consequences.

The report

• Reviews the history of food processing
• Defines ultra-processed foods
• Reviews their health risks
• Explain how they affect health
• Describes the food system that produces them
• Explains how to identify them and make better choices

The report is beautifully illustrated, especially with examples of the marketing of ultra-processed foods and drinks to children.

The illustrations also illustrate the major concepts, ingredient extraction, in this case.

As for how to tell the difference between a processed and an ultra-processed food, try this:

The report is written clearly and covers the territory.  If you want to understand ultra-processed foods, here’s the best way to do it that I’ve seen.  High marks to the authors, Yuka’s Julie Chapon, CEO and Co-Founder Gabriela Mourad Vicenssuto.

My co-author, Lisa Sutherland, is a former vice president of Kellogg.  We had a great time writing this.

Information about the book is here.

For a 30% discount at that site, use code UCPSAVE30.

Here’s the official launch invitation

Please come to the celebration and launch for my new book, Tuesday, September 8 | 6:00–8:00 p.m. | NYU Bobst Library.  Registration and further information are here.

On this Labor Day, let’s honor the people who do the hard agricultural work that brings food to our tables.

Image from Vecteezy.

Gloria Steinem was very much a heroine of my generation.  I did not know her personally, although I met her once.  It was a memorable occasion.

Gloria Steinem, Padma Lakshmi, Ruth Reichl, and me in 2021.

This was a meeting at Gloria’s house to discuss menopause, of all things.  I could not figure out why I was invited—I’m a little late for that discussion.  It turned out that one of the women there, a donor to Gloria’s foundation apparently,  had developed a line of menopause products and wanted us to know about them.

Whatever.  I was thrilled to be there and have the chance to meet her.

We are the same generation.  We came of age at a time when women opportunities for women to work, let alone have careers, were limited.

We did cross paths.  We were at the same youth festival in Vienna in 1959.  She was funded by the CIA; I was not.  We did not meet.

But I knew about her work from early on.  I loved her account of posing as a Playboy bunny.  I could see how MS magazine provided an intellectual basis for the women’s movement.

It even provoked new thoughts about the food movement.  My all-time favorite article (I am mentioned in it) is The Feminist Food Revolution.  It asked a question I had never thought of: Why do men keep getting all the credit for the food movement?

She was a tireless advocate for better opportunities for women, and an inspiration to keep on advocating.

I wish I had known her better.

Here’s The New York Times obituary.  It’s on the top of the front page of the print copy, as well it should.