It’s Climate Week, so this seems ironically appropriate.  Never mind global warming, ruminant greenhouse gas emissions, or food safety.

You have to love the double-speak rhetoric:

This action aligns research and promotion activities with the Department’s priorities and the original mission of the checkoffs. USDA remains committed to ensuring that every dollar collected from American producers serves American agriculture for the better.

“Serving American agriculture for the better” is a red flag.  It usually translates as serving the interests of agribusiness or the peculiar politics of the current USDA.

The USDA’s target here is its Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.  This, according to the announcement, was

established through the checkoff, has pursued extensive ESG initiatives, including greenhouse-gas and net-zero targets. USDA’s action ends checkoff support for those ESG-related projects…This action also directs the Agricultural Marketing Service to ensure no research and promotion funds in other commodity checkoffs advance ESG mandates…USDA is taking swift action to bar the Dairy Checkoff from spending farmer paid dollars on the radical ESG ideology [my emphasis].

I took a look at the Innovation Center website.  Its focus areas may explain why the USDA wants its funding stopped.  Radical ideology?  You decide.

• Animal care: Align the industry on best practices for animal well-being and care.
• Environmental Stewardship: Advance solutions that protect natural resources and nourish the planet for future generations.
• Food Safety: Drive adoption of world-class food safety practices while exploring next generation technologies that progress safety and traceability.
• Health & Well-being: Deliver dairy nutrition that meets emerging and personalized health while improving nutrition security in the U.S. and around the world.
• People & Community: Support efforts to alleviate hunger, promote community vitality, and empower the dairy workforce.

The Center is funded by the checkoff program.  With no checkoff funding, it will no longer exist.

Chalk this up as another tragic casualty of the Trump administration’s radical ideology.

I subscribe to Jerry Hagstrom’s “The Hagstrom Report” for his tracking of food events in Washington DC I would not know about otherwise.  He occasionally hosts sponsored posts and I was especially interested to read this one on September 15: “Candy: An American Manufacturing Success Story 250 Years in the Making” by John Downs, the president and CEO of the National Confectioners Association.

I don’t write about candy much.  Yes it’s sugar, but most people don’t eat all that much of it.

The CDC lists these main sources of sugar in US diets:

• 24% from sugary drinks, such as soft drinks, fruit drinks, sports drinks, and energy drinks.
• 19% from desserts and sweet snacks.
• 11% from coffee and tea that is sweetened before sale or added later.
• 9% from candy and sugars.
• 7% from breakfast cereals and bars.

According to Google’s AI, for candy:

Wish Fast Food Nation a happy 25th anniversary.

It’s hard for me to believe it’s been 25 years since this book first appeared, but 25th anniversary editions of my Food Politics and Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma are also in the works.

The book is about the beef industry and what it does to the animals, packing house workers, the environment, and human health.

Eric Schlosser wrote a new Afterword for this edition.

Here are two excerpts.

As of this writing…highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) has not yet caused a deadly epidemic among human beings.  Pasteurization kills H5N1 in milk, and the virus hasn’t yet mutated to become for contagious or more lethal.  But H5N1 has become endemic among wild birds, chickens, turkeys, and dairy cattle in the United States, allowing a continual mixture of its genes.  A bird flu epidemic that kills millions of people may never emerge from America’s factory farms—or it may next week, next month, next year.  The industrialization of livestock, the transformation of sentient creatures into commodities, and the absence of government oversight have created an efficient system for creating dangerous new pathogens.  As this book argued twenty-five years ago, that’s the price we pay for cheap meat.  That price doesn’t appear on the menu. (p. 312)

Economists often use the four-firm concentration ratio as a measure of the competition in a market for goods and services.  When four companies gain a combined market share of 40 percent or higher, an oligopoly has formed.  The prices offered to suppliers, the prices charged to consumers, and the wages paid to workers are no longer determined mainly by market forces.  A handful of companies have gained control of the market.  Effective government regulation becomes more difficult, as state and federal agencies readily become “captive” to the corporations they’re supposed to oversee.  Today, four companies control about 60 percent of the worldwide market for seeds and 61 percent of the market for pesticides.  Four companies control about 70 to 90 percent of the worldwide trade in grain.  Four companies are responsible for processing about 70 percent of America’s hogs and 85 percent of its cattle.

This book kicked off the food movement 25 years ago.  If you haven’t read it, now is the time.  We need it more than ever.

More and more Americans are taking GLP-1 drugs; the current estimate is 11%.

This causes a big problem for the food industry.  Eating less is bad for business.

Here are some of the ways the food industry is responding.

Analyzing the GLP-1 consumer

• Overturning 7 industry assumptions about the GLP-1 consumer: The newest evidence challenges some of the food industry’s most comfortable conclusions about GLP-1 consumers… Read more
• New GLP-1 Consumer Data Challenges Food Industry Forecasts:  New data from IFF, PwC, BCG, and The Harris Poll UK challenges assumptions about GLP-1 consumers, bakery demand, grocery spending, and product development.

Dealing with labeling issues

• What do consumers call GLP-1s? Manufacturers must understand how consumers talk about the drugs to improve marketing effectiveness, product discoverability and consumer engagement… Read more
• What does the ‘GLP-1 friendly’ label really mean?  Food companies are increasingly adopting the label on packaging, but failing to explain how it could help consumers on weight loss drugs, one industry expert writes.
• Beyond ‘GLP-1 friendly’: The nutrition opportunity food brands are missing: Health experts point to muscle, bone and cardiovascular health as key priorities for consumers taking GLP-1 medications and navigating midlife, creating opportunities for food and beverage brands to connect functional nutrition with consumer education… Read more

Developing new products

• Can foods make consumers feel full like GLP-1s?  Many hope to replicate the impact of GLP-1s on satiety through food… Read more
• Nestlé bets big on GLP-1s with AI-powered nutrition push: The world’s biggest CPG is using AI and nutritional science to develop products tailored to GLP-1 users… Read more
• Europeans finally care about GLP-1s: Europe’s GLP-1 conversation is taking off. While uptake still trails the US, interest is surging across the continent… Read more

_________________________

Arriving Sept 8. For a 30% discount, pre-order here using code UCPSAVE30.

I was struck by this announcement: 

Campbell’s is not the only one.  Also see:

• Food Dive: The biggest food and beverage layoffs in 2025 
• ProFoodWorld: Food Industry Layoffs Mount as Nestlé, Del Monte Cut Jobs
• Democracy Now: Over 3,000 Workers Laid Off as Tyson Foods Closes Meatpacking Plants

What’s going on?  I see four reasons for declining food sales.

• RFK Jr says the food industry is poisoning America
• Health advocacy to reduce intake of ultra-processed foods
• The effect of GLP-1 agonist drugs in reducing food intake
• Inflation in food prices

These trends may do wonders for health.

But to the food industry, they are a worry: eating less is bad for business.

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.