I learned about this one from a British public relations firm.

Hey Marion,

Eating an egg a day could cut Alzheimer’s risk by 27%, major new study reveals as UK searches for dementia prevention hit a five-year high.

The press release linked to the study

Egg Intake and the Incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease in the Adventist Health Study-2 Cohort Linked with Medicare Data, followed nearly 40,000 American adults aged 65 and over for an average of 15.3 years — making it one of the largest investigations to date into how diet affects dementia risk.  Compared with people who never ate eggs, the researchers found:

– 5+ eggs per week — 27% lower Alzheimer’s risk

– 2-4 eggs per week — 20% lower risk

– 1-3 eggs per month — 17% lower risk

Why eggs?

Researchers say the protective effect comes from the unique cocktail of brain-essential nutrients found in eggs. The standout is choline — used by the body to produce acetylcholine, a brain chemical critical for memory and learning. Eggs are also rich in lutein, tryptophan, and the omega-3 fat DHA.

Lest I forget that this is about public relations, the message ends with this:

If you use the story, could you please link back to our client’s website.

Comment

Guess who paid for this study:

Funding: Initial support for the cohort was provided by the National Cancer Institute (grant 1U01CA152939). The analyses in this study were supported by an investigator-initiated grant from the American Egg Board. The funding sources had no role in the study design, execution, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication.

Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Adventists are generally healthier than the general population, so it’s hard to know what to make of this.  Dietary advice in the U.S. even at the height of concerns about cholesterol always said one egg a day is OK.  This study does not change that.

Will eating eggs help you prevent Alzheimer’s?  If only it were that easy.

And again: the authors do not believe that requesting a grant from the American Egg Board constitutes a conflict of interest.  I do.  The egg industry has a vested interest in the outcome of this study, and got the result it wanted.

The Global Food Institute at George Washington University has a new report out: Changing the Default: A Policy Roadmap for Reducing Added Sugars in U.S. Children’s Diets,  by Fielding-Singh, P., D. Cherlin, and M. Maitin-Shepard.  June 2026.

What the report is about:

American children today consume far too much added sugar, and it is harming their health. The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans set the most ambitious target yet for reducing this intake. This brief offers a policy roadmap for what it would take to make meaningful progress toward it.

It calls for reshaping the food environment to help kids eat less sugar.  Its recommendations focus on educating families, but also setting higher school nutrition standards and reshaping sugar supply and demand.

Here’s why this matters:

The advice:

• Reduce sugars in the food supply.
• Tax sugary drinks.
• Restrict marketing of sugary foods and drinks to kids.

Comment

It’s a clear, succinct report with lots of good suggestions.

If only they could be implemented.

Get to work!

The GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) loophole refers to the way the FDA allows food manufacturers basically to decide for themselves whether the additives they are using are safe, voluntarily or not.

Closing the loophole is a key goal of the Make America Healthy Again Movement (MAHA), and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has made closing this loophole a key goal of his administration, and he has directed the FDA to “explore rulemaking” on this issue, meaning write real regulations.

We have yet to see any sign of what the FDA is proposing.

In the meantime, Yuka, maker of the popular product-scanning app, and Consumer Reports have petitioned FDA to get busy on this.

Now, product-scanning app Yuka and watchdog group Consumer Reports are urging the FDA to tighten regulation of food additives and close the GRAS “loophole”, after their investigation found that 25 out of 40 popular food and drink products contain at least one additive at levels identified as concerning by peer-reviewed research.

“Americans shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to eat safely – but today, no one, not even the FDA, can say exactly what’s in our food,” reads the organisations’ petition, which has already surpassed its goal of 35,000 signatures.

This is an old issue.  My contribution to this discussion was published in 2013: Nestle M.  Conflict of interest in the regulation of food safety: a threat to scientific integrity.  JAMA Internal Medicine 2013;173(22):2036-2038. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9158.

So what’s the holdup?  Two reasons:

1.  RFK, Jr is on record as saying he doesn’t like regulation.  Regulation is nanny state.  He much prefers education.
2.  Lobbying by the users of unregulated food additives; they like it just the way it is.

NOTUS has a remarkable investigative report on lobbying over the GRAS loophole.  The number of lobbyists on this issue has tripled, it says.

After Kennedy directed the Food and Drug Administration to explore closing the GRAS loophole in March 2025, the number of trade associations, companies and organizations that reported lobbying on the pending regulation have nearly tripled, according to a NOTUS analysis of federal lobbying disclosures.

In-house and hired lobbyists for 35 organizations — from food chemical suppliers to packagers and manufacturers — disclosed lobbying specifically on GRAS reform during the first quarter of 2026, up from 12 during the same period in 2025 and one during the same period in 2024.

NOTUS gives one example:

AFIT [Americans for Ingredient Transparency] paid the Russell Group $240,000 between August 2025 and March, including $170,000 in the first quarter of this year, to lobby on “issues pertaining to ingredient transparency,” according to its quarterly lobbying disclosures.

If MAHA wants to close the loophole, it has to take on the food industry, big time.

No wonder RFK Jr is switching to physical activity: shades of Let’s Move!

I know I just wrote about botulism in powdered infant formula but it upsets me so much that I have to do it again.

We now have a second outbreak, first ByHeart now Nara, both linked to contaminated organic whole milk from the same German supplier.

Yes, botulism in infant formula is rare, but not nearly rare enough.  You do not want your infant to be one of the unlucky ones.

I’m trying to understand how this could happen and how it can be stopped.

The clearest explanation comes from food safety lawyer, Bill Marler, who represents families of those unlucky babies.

Let me summarize.

• Botulism comes from bacterial spores (“seeds”) that can germinate in an infant’s intestine, releasing botulinum toxin.
• The spores came from Clostridium botulinum in dirt.  Somehow, the dirt got on the cows and the spores got into their milk.
• Spores resist drying and heat; they survive Pasteurization and the drying that happens when milk is turned into powder.
• Spores can germinate in infants’ digestive tracts and produce botulinum toxin (older children and adults have immunity)
• The fat in whole milk may protect the spores (the ByHeart and Nara formulas are whole milk)
• Pasteurized powdered milk is not sterile; it can contain botulinum spores.

What can parents of bottle-fed infants safely feed them?

The only option is an expensive one: Ready-to-feed formula previously sterilized at temperatures high enough to kill spores.

How about preventing spores in the first place?

This is not easy, according to a study of just this question in the International Dairy Journal: Towards low-spore milk powders: A review on microbiological challenges of dairy powder production with focus on aerobic mesophilic and thermophilic spores (Thanks to Kristin Schill for sending).

Here’s what this study says needs to be done to keep spore levels low:

• Membrane filtration or bactofugation
• Validation of cleaning protocols to avoid recontamination
• Sterilisation of heating equipment
• Development of evaporators that are to be sterilised
• Ensure the plant design is hygienic
• Avoid long production cycles for temperature-sensitive steps, i.e., separation, pasteurisation and evaporation
• In other words, prevention requires a clean farm, clean udders, filtration, a clean plant, and quick processing.

What about testing?  It comes too late in the process and can’t always find rare contaminants.

And formula companies would rather not test for pathogens; if they find some, they have to issue recalls.

They also do not like to take responsibility; they would much rather finger point.

; Nara did not want to reveal the name of its European supplier.

The risk of botulinum spores has been known for a long time, at least since 2013.

Marler, who keeps track of all the problems with powdered infant formula in the past few years, thinks Congress needs to pass the Infant Formula Safety Modernization Act of 2026, which requires much, much higher standards for and oversight of infant formula.

Here is Marler’s letter to Congress summarizing the rationale for and evidence in support of this act.

Congress: Please pass this, and right away.  It will force formula companies to do what they should have been doing all along.

Yesterday, a US District Court in the District of Columbia ruled that the USDA violated its own laws when it approved SNAP food restriction waivers allowing states to ban purchases of sodas and some other foods using their Electronic Benefit Cards (they can still buy those foods using their own money).

The decision makes riveting reading, as shown in these excerpts.

USDA used the wrong statute

The section of the statute the Secretary relies upon as authorization to approve the projects at issue, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), does not cover projects aimed towards improving the health of SNAP recipients, and the agency sidestepped the section of the statute that does address those projects, section 2026(k) – which sets out strict requirements they must meet – entirely.

USDA waived more than was allowed

With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of “food” as it was laid down by Congress.  Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k).

USDA did not follow its own procedures

Defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public.  The agency’s terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact 3 on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record.

These reasons are strictly procedural

The Court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not.  That is a question of policy that is not before the Court.  The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals.  But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.

The waivers are now remanded (sent back to USDA) and vacated (annulled).  The judgment says orders to USDA will follow.

In the meantime, Jerry Hagstrom reports that the USDA is downgrading administrative oversight of SNAP.

The Trump administration ended the Agriculture Department mission area status of the federal nutrition programs as part of its broad reorganization, according to a little-noticed explanation published alongside the establishment of the Food and Nutrition Administration.

Eliminating the mission area also apparently allows for the elimination of the positions of agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services and the deputy administrator.

What does this mean?  As Hagstrom explains,

A House Democratic aide said that aligning the structure of the nutrition programs with other benefit programs would make it easier to move FNA to HHS if the Trump administration should try to follow the Project 2025 guidance.

Cindy Long, a deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services in the Biden administration and before that the administrator of Food and Nutrition Service, said in an email, “This change would represent an abdication of the secretary’s responsibility for FNS programs, which comprise over 75% of the USDA budget.” (Translation: this means SNAP).

As I’ve said previously, the USDA’s SNAP waivers have nothing to do with health, but everything to do with getting more people off of SNAP rolls.

Why do I think this?  Here’s the headline from ProPublica: More Than 770,000 Children Are No Longer Receiving SNAP Benefits After Trump Changes Federal Food Program.

____

Thanks to Cathy Nonas, Jerry Mande, and Jerry Hagstrom for providing documents and info for this post.

Who knew raspberries were an industry.  As it happens, every food has its own industry, each more desperate than the next to prove it is a superfood so you will buy it and not its competing foods.

Here’s how I heard about this one:

Red raspberries linked to better blood sugar control and memory in older adults:  Adding a cup of red raspberries to a carbohydrate‑rich meal may help curb post‑meal glucose and insulin spikes while supporting short-term cognitive performance in older obese or overweight adults…. Read more

As always, I went right to it:

• The study: Xiao D, Shukitt-Hale B, Rutledge GA, Fisher DR, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman B. Red raspberry improves postprandial metabolic indices and cognitive function in older adults who are overweight or have obesity. British Journal of Nutrition. Published online 2026:1-13. doi:10.1017/S0007114525105497
• Method:“This randomised, single-blinded, controlled crossover study evaluated the acute metabolic and cognitive effects of RRB intake in older adults (55–70 years) with overweight/obesity.
• Conclusion: “These findings suggest that acute RRB supplementation attenuated postprandial metabolic stress, reduced markers of neuroinflammation and improved cognitive performance, supporting RRB’s potential role in a dietary strategy for ageing populations.”
• Acknowledgments: “This work was supported by the National Processed Raspberry Council and the Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WA, USA). The authors thank Van Drunen Farms (Momence, IL, USA) for providing the freeze-dried red raspberry powder used in this project…The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Comment: Et tu, raspberries?  They are coming into season on my Manhattan terrace and I do love to go out in the morning and pick them for breakfast in the week or so that they produce fruit.  I’ll take whatever short-term cognitive benefit they convey.  But c’mon.  Can one fruit, no matter how delicious, organically grown, local, and seasonal deliver on such promises?  Seems like a lot to ask.  And I continue to be amazed that the researchers see no conflict of interest in having their study funded by raspberry trade groups, when so much evidence demonstrates commercial funding to influence research outcome.  This is one of those studies where I could predict the funder from the title, and predict the outcome from knowing the funder.

Legal issues about CBD and THC edibles continue to be in flux, and not only in the United States.

• DOJ, DEA Reschedule Medical Cannabis Products: The rescheduling follows a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump, which called on the U.S. Attorney General to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana.” READ MORE
• France bans CBD edibles, European agency agrees on ‘reproductive toxicant’ classification:  France has banned CBD edibles and convinced the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) that CBD should be treated as a reproductive toxicant, adding pressure on an “already fragile and highly uncertain” market…. Read more

One big issue is their safety, since nobody is checking to see what is really in the products.

• The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is warning consumers not to eat TRE House brand Magic Mushroom gummies, chocolate bars and syrup. These products contain synthetic psychedelic compounds that may cause severe illness, hospitalization or even death.

In the meantime, lots of new cannabis-fortified foods are on the market.

• Grön Brings Chocolate Bars to New Jersey:  Grön brings to New Jersey a collection of five chocolate bars, each built around a clear, effect-based experience. READ MORE
• Death Row Cannabis Expands into Nevada: The Nevada launch brings Death Row Cannabis into one of the most dynamic cannabis markets in the country, positioning the brand to capitalize on the state’s high-volume, tourism-driven economy. READ MORE  
• nuEra Introduces Pickle-Flavored Edibles:  Available now at nuEra Chicago, the 10 mg THC-infused gummy is a reimagining of a classic edible. READ MORE

And there is a whole new category of drinks: hemp spirits; these are non-alcoholic.

• Señorita Debuts 1777 Hemp THC Spirit:With notes of agave, lime and dragon fruit, 1777 comes in a 750 ml bottle and includes 10 mg of hemp-derived THC per 1.5-oz. serving. READ MORE
• High Rise Beverage Co. Expands Infusions Lineup: The brand’s Raspberry and Orange THC infusions, available in 750 ml bottles, join the original Citrus flavor. READ MORE
• Twofold Introduces THC Spirits:  Twofold is presented in a 750 ml bottle and designed for structured cocktail use. READ MORE 

Comment

This is information, not recommendation.  Be careful about these products.

• • Their doses are unregulated; start small and wait two hours before taking more.
  • Keep them securely away from children.
  • Don’t let pets consume them.

Apparently so.  According to the New York Times, the city has banned ads promoting activities linked to high carbon emissions.  Meat is high on that list.

On May 1, Amsterdam became the world’s first capital city to ban ads for fossil fuel products and meat. It’s part of the city’s efforts to discourage consumption of goods linked with high carbon emissions.

Ads for airlines, cruises, and faraway destinations are no longer allowed because they implicitly promote the burning of fossil fuels. Ads for beef, chicken, pork and fish are also banned because of the environmental harms caused by animal agriculture.

…Amsterdam’s law applies to city-owned properties and public spaces, such as buses and bus shelters, benches, trams, trains and metro stations, and billboards. Advertising in privately owned stores and in media such as newspapers, radio and online formats is exempt.

Here’s why:

Will banning such ads encourage less meat consumption?  I hope someone is evaluating this possibility.