Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Jun 23 2025

Industry-funded study of the week: soy

I haven’t done one of these in a while.  This one is especially timely with all the fuss going on about the supposed toxicity of seed oils, soy among them.  To be clear: I do not see convincing evidence for this contention.

Still, it makes soy producers want to demonstrate that eating soy poses no health problems.  Hence, this study.

Effect of Soy Isoflavones on Measures of Estrogenicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Gabrielle Viscardi, Songhee Back, Amna Ahmed, Shuting Yang, Sonia Blanco Mejia, Andreea Zurbau, Tauseef A Khan, Amanda Selk, Mark Messina, Cyril WC Kendall, David JA Jenkins, John L Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2025, 100327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100327.

The abstract begins:

Despite recommendations to increase plant food consumption for public and planetary health and the role that soy foods can play in plant-predominant diets, controversies around the effects of soy foods, especially soy isoflavones, are a barrier to their intake. Given their cardioprotective effects and ability to alleviate menopausal symptoms, addressing these concerns is particularly relevant to women…This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine the effect of soy isoflavones on measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women.

Conclusion: “Current evidence suggests that soy isoflavones do not exhibit estrogenic effects compared with non-isoflavone controls on 4 measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women.”

Funding: “This work was supported by the United Soybean Board (the United States Department of Agriculture soy check-off program)….”

Conflicts of interest:  Oh dear.  It’s hard to know where to begin, as the lists go on and on and on.  One of the authors “is the Director of Nutrition Science and Research at the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, an organization that receives partial funding from the principal funder, the United Soybean Board (USB).”  Others report financial ties to Soy Foods Association of North America, the Soy Nutrition Institute, and the United Soybean Board.

Comment.  Some of the authors on this review appear highly conflicted.  What is especially troubling is their apparent mocking of the concept of conflicted interests and conflating of personal views (which all researchers have, but these vary) with financial ties (which are discretionary and almost invariably produce results favorable to the sponsor’s interests).   Authors on this paper report as conflicts such things as awards, funding from professional societies, unpaid work for professional societies, vegan dietary preferences, and activities of their spouses and children—none of which are in the same category as financial ties to industries with direct interests in research outcome.  I don’t think this kind of conflicted research helps the soybean cause.

Jun 20 2025

Weekend viewing: My Hopkins’ Graduation Address

Photo: Prof. Albert Wu

It was an enormous, overwhelming honor to be invited to give the convocation address to graduates of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

I spent a long time thinking about what I would say to graduates entering the public health workforce at a time like this.

The ceremonies took place outdoors in the university’s stadium on cold, rainy May 21.

Lots of friends and colleagues have asked me if there is a video of the speech.  There is, and it has just been sent to me.

If you are at all interested, you can take a look at:

It was also my great honor to receive the Dean’s Medal for Public Health Leadership.  That part begins at 15:20.

Tags:
Jun 19 2025

The latest on plant-based foods: a round-up

Every now and then I like to collect items on what’s going on in the plant-based food world.

These products have their ups and downs, with much inconsistency.

Here are some recent items demonstrating some of those inconsistencies.

Jun 18 2025

The latest food safety scandal: Salmonella in eggs—again

This post from food safety lawyer Bill Marler got my attention: 20,400,000 Salmonella tainted Cage Free, Organic Eggs recalled after 79 Sickened: According to the FDA, California-based August Egg Company of Hilmar is recalling 1,700,000 dozen brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs due to potential contamination. A total of 79 people infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella have been reported from seven states. Illnesses started on dates ranging from February 24, 2025, to May 17, 2025. Twenty-seven… Continue Reading

The FDA’s report of its investigations is here.

The FDA and CDC, in collaboration with state and local partners, are investigating illnesses in a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis infections linked to brown cage free eggs and brown certified organic eggs supplied by August Egg Company, Hilmar, CA.

The CDC’s account of this investigation  is here.

The CDC notes:

The true number of sick people in this outbreak is also likely much higher than the number reported. This is because many people recover without medical care and are not tested for Salmonella.

Comment

To endlessly repeat: Salmonella in eggs is preventable, but nobody is making egg producers do what they need to do to prevent hens from getting infected.  If 79 cases and 21 hospitalizations doesn’t get you upset, ask yourself why you are inured to such information.  One more time: these are preventable illnesses and hospitalizations.  And no, organic and cage free conditions do not prevent hens from carrying Salmonella .  And how could they?  I’ve been to industrial organic egg production faciltities and have seen thousands of hens on top of each other in crowded barns.  We have the laws.  They need to be enforced.

Bill Marler keeps insisting that we put him out of business.  Let’s do that.

 

Jun 17 2025

MAHA: the research agenda revealed

FDA has announced a joint research initiative with NIH

Under the new Nutrition Regulatory Science Program, the FDA and NIH will implement and accelerate a comprehensive nutrition research agenda that will provide critical information to inform effective food and nutrition policy actions to help make Americans’ food and diets healthier. The initiative will aim to answer questions such as:

  • How and why can ultra-processed foods harm people’s health?
  • How might certain food additives affect metabolic health and possibly contribute to chronic disease?
  • What is the role of maternal and infant dietary exposures on health outcomes across the lifespan, including autoimmune diseases?

This sounds terrific —and I’m all for all of this.

An article about it in JAMA, of all places, raises some concerns.  It quotes Jerry Mande,

The bad news, he noted, is that the announcement may follow a recent pattern within the federal government of unveiling an initiative but providing few details on how it will be executed. The April press conference held by the HHS and the FDA on eliminating synthetic food dyes is one such example, in his view.

It also quotes me as noting that the announcement is short on detail and even shorter on timeline.

The food industry is in a difficult position…Ultraprocessed foods are among their most profitable, and food companies consider the ability to market to children to be essential to their business models. They could voluntarily start making and marketing healthier products and reducing unhealthy ingredients, but experience tells us that they won’t do this unless forced.

MAHA has now issued requests for proposals on two initiatives.

I.  A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals

This pilot study supports a comprehensive, FDA-led initiative aimed at evaluating the toxicological safety and nutritional quality of meals served in all schools that actively participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), including both public and nonprofit private schools…Schools must be equipped to engage in structure intervention activities and collaborate with a partner to support the transition to minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed.

The goals of this funding opportunity

  1. Identify contaminants (e.g., heavy metals) present in school meals.
  2. Promote whole food offerings and minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed,
  3. Measure potential changes in contaminant levels and nutritional content pre- and post-intervention.

Yes, let’s give kids real foods in school, preferably and whenever possible cooked from scratch.  But,

  • Are heavy metals a problem in school meals?  What other contaminants are of concern?  Why?
  • How are schools to increase whole food offerings when the administration has cancelled the farm-to-school program?
  • Will schools be given the additional funds needed to pay for whole foods and the staff to cook them?

The offer is for grants of about $2 million each.  The timeline for submission is short (check the links for how to submit and by when).

The FDA sent further information to applicants.

It also sent an FAQ.

Comment: I have a nagging suspicion that what this is really about is a push to substitute “cleaner” products for current products used in schools.  This is a concern because so many of the people now associated with HHS sell “clean” products and, no doubt, would love to sell them in schools.  Substituting one product for another will not solve the single major problem faced by school meal programs: lack of adequate funding for personnel, equipment, and fresh food.

II.  Take Back Your Health Campaign

Purpose:  The purpose of this requirement is to alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes.

Scope: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will launch a series of bold, edgy national campaigns with innovative messaging to inspire and empower Americans to reclaim control over their health. This initiative will challenge individuals to adopt disciplined, lifelong habits—centered on eating real food, physical fitness, and spiritual growth—to build a healthier, stronger nation.

As Stat News puts it, HHS plans ‘bold, edgy’ campaign on ultra-processed foods and diabetes. 

The campaign, estimated to cost between $10-20 million, will urge Americans to shift their behaviors and see health wearables as ‘cool’.  The call for pitches was posted on the evening of June 12, with a swift deadline of June 26. It asks not only for “daring, viral messaging to motivate behavior change” but for campaigns that specifically “popularize technology like wearables as cool, modern tools for measuring diet impact and taking control of your health.” Surgeon general nominee Casey Means’ health tech company, Levels, uses continuous glucose monitors and lab testing to help people track their health.

Comment: Oh dear.  Personal responsibility.  Never mind that the MAHA Commission report clearly identified environmental factors as responsible for epidemic chronic disease.  Neither of these initiatives gets at changing the “toxic” food environment.  To really do that, MAHA would need to stop food industry marketing of ultra-processed foods, especially to children.  And to get at other environmental causes of poor health, especially for children, it would need to take on the cigarette industry, the gun lobby (guns are a leading cause of kids’ deaths), and the industries that dump chemicals into the water and food supplies.

I’m totally for educating people about healthy diets, eating real food, and physical fitness.  But education is not enough to change behavior.  Education has to be backed up by policy.

Where’s the policy?  For that, we must wait for the next MAHA Commission report, due out in August.  Stay tuned.

 

 

Jun 16 2025

Industry funded continuing education for dietitians: Beef

Thanks to my former doctoral student and now colleague, Lisa Young, for forwarding this SmartBrief mailed to members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

To its credit, the brief begins with this statement (in small print): “This is a paid advertisement for SmartBrief readers. The content does not necessarily reflect the view of SmartBrief or its Association partners.”

Also to its credit, the brief says:

Proteins can be obtained through both animal-based sources and plant-based sources. All animal-based sources, and some plant-based ones, are considered complete proteins, containing all nine essential amino acids.

It continues,

This Nutrition and Dietetics SmartBrief Special Report, brought to you by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, spotlights the importance of protein, the different types of protein, its role in combination with GLP-1 receptor agonists and expert tips from registered dietitians.

Guess what it says about the different types of protein:

Animal-sourced foods, like beef, offer a high-quality essential amino acid profile, and a unique combination of micronutrients. Read recent research on high-quality protein and its impact on growth, development, muscle health and maintenance and earn 2 CPEUs for this activity.

For reading material producted by the beef trade association, dietitians get free continuing education credits toward the total required by their association.

Does this have any influence on what dietitians say about animal vs. plant proteins?  I’m guessing the beef association hopes so.

Tags: ,
Jun 13 2025

Weekend reading: Scratch Cooking in Schools

The Chef Ann [Cooper] Foundation has issued This report.

The report, while recognizing obstacles, explains why scratch cooking matters so much.

To protect and improve children’s health — and to access cascading academic, environmental, and economic benefits — schools must serve students more minimally processed meals cooked from scratch. While most schools want to serve their students more scratch-made meals, their ability to do so is significantly limited by systemic labor, financial, and infrastructure barriers, as well as public perceptions that devalue the critical role school food professionals play in suppporting the well-being of our nation’s children.

Its food policy priorities are well worth attention, especially now when the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is focusing on schools.

Let’s hope the MAHA leadership takes a good look at this report.  Thanks Chef Ann!

________________

Published this week!  Information is here.  Get 15% off with this code: FSGPIC15

Jun 12 2025

The tariff wars: What do we buy from China?

The New York Times had a long article on what we buy from China.  Lots, in a word.

From the standpoint of nutrition and food politics, I was particularly interested in these items:

If you take vitamin supplements, or eat foods fortified with vitamins, you are eating chemicals extracted or synthesized in China.

If you eat eel or frozen fish fillets, they come from China.

Tariffs will increase the prices of these items.  Watch them rise!

________________

Published this week!  Information is here. Get 15% off with this code: FSGPIC15