The FDA says artificial sweeteners are safe at current levels of use.  It has established Acceptable Daily Intakes for most of them.  These levels are much, much higher than anyone is likely to consume in a day.

But: The benefits and risk of these sweeteners continue to be debated.

The Benefits?

• Rethinking sweetness in an age of sugar skepticism: As shoppers scrutinize labels and headlines, brands are rethinking sweetness strategies to deliver lower sugar, clearer messaging and commercially viable reformulations… Watch now
• Scientists closer to solving sugar reduction’s taste problem: After years of compromise, sweetness without sacrifice may finally be within reach… Read more
• Sweet proteins: The future of clean-label sugar reduction:  How are new innovations in the sweet ingredients space challenging the assumption that taste needs to be compromised when formulating clean-label, better-for-you food and beverages?… Read more

The Risks?

• Sweeteners under fire as scientists probe neurological risks;  New research linking popular sweeteners to cognitive decline has again raised concerns over their safety. What does this mean manufacturers?… Read more
• Sweeteners back in the spotlight as scientists probe liver disease risks:  Once hailed as a reformulation fix, sweeteners are now facing growing scientific scrutiny… Read more 
• Common Sweetener May Harm Critical Brain Barrier, Risking Stroke: Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar.  But research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

Comment

I continue to be baffled by artificial sweeteners.  I don’t knowingly eat them.  I don’t eat anything artificial, and I particularly do not like the taste of alternative sweeteners.  If I want to avoid sugar, I can and do.  Substitutes don’t work for me.

With that said, how harmful are they?  I wish I knew.  Plenty of studies suggest harm.  But the science is especially hard to do because sweeteners are typically consumed in such small amounts.

My advice about artificial sweeteners?  Avoid them if you can; they might be harmful and they are markers of ultra-processed foods.  If you cannot or do not want to avoid them, try to keep intake as low and infrequent as possible.  As with everything else in nutrition, the best way to prevent problems is to eat a wide variety of relatively unprocessed foods in small amounts.

Additional resources

Gary Ruskin reminds me that US Right to Know has fact sheets on sweeteners.

• Aspartame and health risks
• Aspartame and weight gain
• Sucralose and health risks

Yes, I know baby food pouches are convenient and let babies feed themselves without making a mess.

But I can think of so many reasons not to use them.  Baby food pouches:

• Contain foods that are generally too sweet.
• Contain homogenious textures.
• Do not teach babies about the color, taste, and texture of real foods.
• Do not promote small motor skills.
• Undermine baby-led weaning (exploring real foods).

Now here is one more reason to avoid them: microplastics.

Greenpeace has measured microplastics in Gerber baby food pouches.  As the press release says,

A new investigation commissioned by Greenpeace International has found microplastics in every baby food pouch it tested, and estimates that a single Gerber pouch contains more than 5,000 microplastic particles and more than 11,000 in a Happy Baby Organics pouch. The study traced the likely source to the plastic lining of the pouches themselves.

The report, Tiny Plastics, Big Problem: The Hidden Health Risks of Baby Food Plastic Pouches, and an accompanying technical report, reveal:

• Researchers found up to 270 microplastic particles per teaspoon in Gerber pouches and up to 495 microplastic particles per teaspoon in Happy Baby Organics.
• The study found at least one endocrine disrupting chemical in the packaging and the food.
• The research suggests a link between polyethylene, the plastic lining the pouches, and some of the microplastics found in the baby food.

Greenpeace USA is calling on baby food companies to use packaging that will be safer for babies.  Sounds like a good idea.

This gives me an excuse to share what I’ve collected recently about microplastics.

• Microplastics and plastic bottles: How worried should we be?  The issue of microplastics and nanoplastics are increasingly coming into consumer consciousness… Read more
• How big a problem are microplastics?  The first global study of its kind quantifies the problem in the food and drink industry… Read more
• Microplastics are ‘widespread’ in cheese: here’s how this happens: Cheese is ripe in microplastics, a groundbreaking study revealed… Read more
• Ultra-processed foods are a key driver of the global plastics pollution crisis:  Rob Ralston, Katherine Sievert, Kim Anastasiou, Joe Yates & Jennifer Clapp.  Nature Food, 2006 doi:10.1038/s43016-026-01341-0.
• Can Food Packaging Go Plastic-Free?  The authors detail the environmental drivers, emerging materials, and research priorities shaping the transition from fossil-derived plastics to bio-based and circular solutions for food packaging. Read More
• Food & Water Watch:  250+ Health Professionals Call on EPA to Monitor Microplastics in Drinking Water.  Today, over two hundred and fifty doctors, nurses and other health care and public health professionals and organizations sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging the agency to add microplastics to the Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) and monitor for these contaminants in our drinking water.

Comment

As I see it, this issue has reached an action level.

• Do what you can to avoid buying food and drinks in plastic containers.
• Don’t let babies eat from plastic containers.
• Let companies know you want them to use safer containers.
• Applaud companies that change their packaging.

It’s impossible not to notice all the reports of declining food sales.  I’ve been talking about four existential threats to the food industry:

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr (“The food industry is poisoning America”)
• Ultra-processed foods (dietary guidelines advise eating less of them)
• GLP-1 drugs (they reduce food intake)
• Inflation (people can’t afford to overeat)

To these, I must add now one more.

• SNAP restrictions (they decrease purchases of sodas and sweets)

The crisis

• Is Big Food breaking? Why the industry is selling itself off:  Investors are losing patience as volume growth stalls and food giants tear up the playbook.
• Big Food splits: Smart move or strategic misstep?  Big Food’s biggest names are betting on splits, but market reactions show investors aren’t convinced. So when does breaking up actually make sense?… Read more
• Big Food’s leadership crisis: Why CEOs are falling faster than ever:  C-suite exits are mounting across Big Food, but behind the scandals lies a deeper performance and innovation problem… Read more
• Big Food splits: Smart move or strategic misstep? Big Food’s biggest names are betting on splits, but market reactions show investors aren’t convinced. So when does breaking up actually make sense?… Read more
• CEO churn exposes growing cracks in Big Food’s growth model:  Leadership changes across Big Food are starting to look less like succession and more like a response to cracks in the growth model…. Watch now
• An existential shift is coming: Dimbleby on the forces set to reshape food: The industry is already seeing a myriad of different pressures, including increased labour and input costs, but Henry Dimbleby has warned things may get much worse before they get better…. Read more
• SNAP restrictions are reshaping sugary food purchases:  Ibotta data shows states prohibiting the use of SNAP funds to buy ‘unhealthy’ products are reshaping sugary beverage and snack demand… Read more

Effects on Big Food companies

• Why Unilever’s $40bn food merger is raising red flags:  Unilever’s $40bn food deal is supposed to sharpen focus. Instead it’s unsettled stakeholders, raising questions over the success of Big Food consolidation… Read more
• Unilever shares plummet following McCormick megamerger announcement: Unilever’s $44.8bn decision to merge its Foods business with McCormick has rattled investors and raised regulatory questions… Read more
• Nestlé sells Blue Bottle Coffee to Centurium Capital:  The deal includes the brand’s cafes and the majority of its CPG business, a spokesperson confirmed.
• Nestlé slashes 450 jobs sparking union backlash: Nestlé’s set to cut more than 450 UK jobs as global restructuring begins… Read more

The bottom line: Eating less is bad for business.

Carlo Petrini and Slow Food acolytes in Turin, 2016.

As a member of Slow Food USA, I received its notice about the death of its founder, Carlo Petrini, at age 76 in Bra, Italy.

A visionary leader and public intellectual with a profound commitment to the common good, human relationships, and the natural world, Carlo Petrini founded Slow Food, the international Terra Madre gathering, and the University of Gastronomic Sciences in Pollenzo. Through these initiatives, he brought to life a global movement rooted in the values of good, clean, and fair food for all, connecting communities, farmers, food artisans, cooks, activists, and young people across the world.

Much has and will be written about his monumental importance to the Slow Food movement and to the food movement in general.  His story about its founding is legendary, triggered as it was by the placement of a McDonald’s at the base of the Spanish Steps in Rome.  Slow Food was to be the opposite of Fast Food—a celebration of the deliciousness of traditional, “real” foods consumed around the world.  He taught the world to treasure them.

He also established the University of Gastronomy in Bra, an exciting place; I taught there once.

Alas, I do not speak Italian, so I never got to know him well.  But I heard him speak many times (particularly enjoyably when translated by Corby Kummer).  I thought he was brilliant, and funny.  Our meetings were always warm and affectionate.

Here is one memory.  At the Slow Food Terra Madre in Turin in 2016, he drove up to me on an electric bike and insisted I get on it immediately.  I took the photo right after that.  There he was, surrounded by adoring fans.  I count myself among them.

This is an irreplaceable loss to the food movement, to humanity, and to me.

Other remembrances

• From Corby Kummer
• From Fred Plotkin
• The obit in the New York Times

When I wrote about dogs getting stoned on cannabis edibles last week, I had no idea this was a thing.

From Bill Nesheim (my sort of son-in-law):

This has been a fairly big problem for hikers in New Hampshire.   I’ve seen a number of situations where dogs needed to be rescued from the mountains due to eating edibles dropped on the trail.  Here’s an example:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/hikenh4k/posts/10162254129628724/.

He then sent me another example (you can’t make this stuff up): Owner warns hikers after dogs sickened on trail: Dogs test positive for THC after eating human feces.  And yet another that cost an $800 veterinary bill.

From Michael Jacobson (founder, CSPI, now director of the National Food Museum):

I can relate.  Guests left an unzipped backpack in our basement. Shortly after they arrived, Oliver was moaning, unable to walk. We thought he had a stroke, but when we rushed him to the vet their verdict was that he was stoned. Turned out that our dear guests had two THC-chocolate bars in their backpack, which Oliver decided to eat. Twenty-four hours and two thousand dollars later, Oliver was back to normal.

From Tamar Haspel (science writer, Washington Post)

I saw your piece today — maybe worth mentioning that, if your dog eats weed brownies, it’s often the chocolate, not the weed, that poses the threat.

And how do I know this? Because Kevin and I visited friends in NY, and we had a bag of weed brownies in our luggage. Their beloved King Charles Cavalier spaniel excavated our bag to find them, and ate the whole thing. We came home from the theater that night and he was being really weird, so we figured it out and took him to the emergency vet, who assured us that the weed wasn’t going to be a problem – he’d just be stoned for a while – but they kept him for 2 days because of chocolate toxicity.

We were SO worried that we killed our friends’ dog! But he was fine.

Comment

Tamar is right about chocolate, especially dark chocolate.  It is not recommended for dogs; they don’t metabolize theobromine or caffeine well.  Dark chocolate can have a 3% fatality rate.

Dogs will eat anything!

The bottom line for pets: keep them away from owners’ and friends’ cannabis edibles.

The bottom line for kids: keep them away from all cannabis edibles, whether intended for humans or pets.

Addition, May 22

A reader, Mollie Morrissette of Pet Food Safety News wrote to point out that cat owners need to be careful about THC in cats.  Apparently, cats’ livers lack key glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) enzymes responsible for processing and eliminating organic compounds like THC and its by-products.  This means that THC toxins can last longer in a cat’s system.

You might think of GLP-1 drugs as miracles of modern medicine, but the food industry views them as a threat.

Why?  Eating less is bad for business.

The Threat

• Data: Alarming new research reveals threat GLP-1s pose to food and drink sector: New research has revealed that as many as 8% of Britons now use weight loss drugs, with a further 14% considering their use in the future…. Read more
• GLP-1 in real life: Smaller shops, fewer ultra-processed foods: Enough with the predictions. How are GLP-1 drugs actually impacting purchasing behaviour?… Read more
• FoodDive: How GLP-1s are shaking up snacking: GLP1-s are reshaping how Americans eat, pushing more consumers toward smaller portions and nutrient-dense options packed with ingredients like protein or fiber. As sales for traditional packaged snacks decline, food companies are now rushing to tap into this fast-growing market.
• What is the ‘GLP-1 halo effect’?  The GLP-1 craze could end up changing more diets than expected – even those of non-GLP-1 users…. Read more
• GLP-1s: Is the industry asking the wrong question?  New data and clinical insight suggest the real impact of GLP-1 drugs isn’t less eating – it’s a rethink of how, when and why people eat… Read more

How food companies are responding

• How GLP-1s are reshaping product innovation:  For product developers, designing GLP-1 friendly foods will require new sensory approaches, emotional metrics and new nutritional architectures… Read more
• The Ozempic effect reaches the bread aisle: Bimbo redesigns bakery for GLP-1 users: The world’s biggest baker says GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are already reshaping how people eat, so it’s redesigning bread and snacks to keep up… Read more
• GLP‑1 drinks take off as brands race for $3.5bn functional growth: From protein shakes to collagen coolers, brands are reinventing beverages for the GLP‑1 era and the race for dominance in this fast‑growing $3.5bn category is just beginning… Read more

When customers go off the drugs

• After GLP-1: Weight regain, food fear and the industry’s next reckoning: With a growing number of people ditching GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, producers are being drawn into a far more complex conversation about nutrition, psychology and long-term eating behavior… Read more
• What happens after GLP-1s and why food will matter more than ever: Former GLP-1 users looking to keep the weight off are a potentially underserved consumer base looking for foods and beverages that will help the feel full longer, manage portions and meet their health goals… Read more

The marketing opportunities

• GLP-1 food boom: Market growth, big brands, and key challenges: GLP-1 fuels rapid food and beverage sector growth – but risks and costs mount… Read more
• GLP-1-friendly foods are booming – but the label is still taboo: From “high protein” to “supports muscle mass” claims, brands are coding GLP-1 benefits without naming the trend outright… Read more
• GLP-1 ranges: Should you launch one?  We round up the challenges and opportunities of entering the ‘GLP-1 friendly’ meals arena… Read more
• Food cravings on GLP-1s? What formulators need to know: It’s a common misconception that GLP-1 drugs erase food cravings. Actually, they alter them… Read more
• Could the GLP-1 boom open the door to shrinkflation? Users of the drugs want smaller portions – this could help food companies save money… Read more
• Beyond GLP-1 drugs: How dietary ingredients can naturally support body’s own satiety hormone: As interest in GLP-1-based weight management grows, emerging data on a dietary ingredient suggest there could also be a more natural approach to control appetite and metabolic health…. Read more

While we are on the subject of stocking standards for grocery stores, take a look at what’s happening in Scotland.

Less sugar, more pressure: Scotland’s HFSS rules force a food industry rethink:  With Scotland’s HFSS restrictions arriving in October, food manufacturers are under mounting pressure to reformulate products without sacrificing taste, texture or brand identity… Read more

Scotland, it seems, has new regulations coming into effect in October.  These restrict promotions and prime shelf placements for foods high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS).

The rules say

• No HFSS products allowed at prime sale points such as checkouts, aisle ends, store entrances, and waiting areas.
• No multibuy promotions allowed.
• No free refills of soft drinks.

When England did this in 2022, the number of HFSS products sold dropped, perhaps by as much as 2 million per day—putting huge pressure on food companies to reformulate.

The big issue: What will people buy instead?

The philosophical question: Is a reformulated ultra-processed food necessarily a good choice?  It will still be ultra-processed.

Bring on the evaluators!  I can’t wait to see the research results.

The USDA has announced that retailers who serve SNAP recipients will now have to carry more real food.  As of fall 2026,

Retailers authorized to accept SNAP benefits must now carry seven varieties of items across four categories of staple foods: protein, grains, dairy, and fruits and vegetables. This change more than doubles the requirement of available foods, emphasizes more whole foods, increases the perishable food requirements, and eliminates loopholes that for too long have allowed retailers to count certain snack foods toward their staple food requirements.

The stocking standards final rule and Federal Register notice spell out the details.  Retailers who accept SNAP EBT cards will have to offer at least 7—instead of the former 3—varieties of dairy, vegetables or fruits, grains, and protein.  Some foods that used to count as varieties no longer will: butter, jerky, cheese dip, snack bars, fruit spreads even though they can still be purchased from SNAP benefits.

Comment

As with everything else this administration does, this action requires translation.  At first glance, it looks terrific.  SNAP recipients, especially those without access to supermarkets, will have greater access to fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods.

Access, of course, is only the first step in eating healthier foods.  Affordability and cultural preferences matter even more.

And here’s a clue to what this is really about:

Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the Food and Nutrition Service has taken action on nearly 3,200 retailers regarding current stocking standards, either for failing to meet them upon application or failing to maintain them once authorized. The latter results in disqualification from accepting SNAP benefits.

As explained by the Food Research & Action Center, the USDA stocking rules will make it difficult for small groceries to meet the requirements, continue to accept SNAP benefits, and stay in business.

Furthermore, according to an analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the new rules have nothing to do with helping SNAP recipients eat more healthfully.  This is because there are no nutrition standards for the varieties: “The irony is not lost on us that the Trump Administration says “eat real food” but won’t require stores to stock it.”

Bottom line: Alas, this looks like yet another mechanism for making SNAP harder to use and reducing the number of participants.

Addition, May 20

Jerry Mande reminds me that there are already lots of stores taking SNAP benefits, and that an increasing proportion of them are convenience stores not exactly famous for carrying healthy foods.  The old (before it had to move to Kansas) Economic Research Service did the store count.