Readers have asked—and expressed considerable frustration—that this blog does not accept comments.  An explanation seems in order.

When I started doing this blog in 2007, I took comments and enjoyed the back-and-forth with readers.

But: sometime in 2012, a troll appeared.  It (or they) posted exceptionally personal and exceptionally nasty comments several times throughout the day.  These disparaged my gender, age, and ethnicity.  They attempted to organize a campaign to get me fired from NYU (my dean at the time thought this was quite funny).

Their tone reminded me of the industry-funded and secretive Center for Consumer Freedom (I’ve written about this group previously) but I had no proof CCF was responsible, although I certainly had my suspicions.

Readers complained that the comments made civil conversation impossible, and asked me to delete them.

I consulted a cyber security expert, who noticed that all the messages, which appeared to come from a great many different people, all had almost identical IP addresses from a spam site in Putnam, Kansas.

If I wanted more information about who was responsible for them, I would need to pay the costs of investigation.

At that point, it was a easier to stop the comments than to have to monitor the site and delete the trolled ones.

So that’s why no comments.

I still get comments sent directly to my email address.  I can’t respond to all of them, but I do appreciate the ones that correct errors and raise interesting issues.

Thanks for reading.

A reader writes (my edit to preserve requested anonymity):

It’s been quite the undertaking to update what to tell patients and clients about the new DGA.  So many resources I’ve always referred to with MyPlate, eating patterns, and more are gone.  I am now having to replace them with other resources and recommendations from the American Heart Association, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and more.  We dietitians are supposed to be fully aligned with the 2025 DGA.  And what about nutrition textbooks?  My suggestion: “integrates the new 2025 DGA through an evidence based lens to foster critical thinking.”

Perfect!  I love “integrates the new 2025 DGA through an evidence based lens to foster critical thinking.”

That’s what we all need to be doing with students, patients, clients, colleagues, friends, and family.

Let’s hear it for critical thinking!

Resource

I’ve been sent a link to a webinar on precisely this topic.  I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet but I sure hope the speakers got into the weeds.

If you think food prices are increasing, you are right.

I’ve been sent an analysis from Trace One.

Trace One says “grocery prices rose 0.7% in December, the largest one-month increase since October 2022—underscoring how food costs remain a major pain point for households even as broader inflation cools.”

Some of its findings:

• Grocery inflation has outpaced broader inflation since the pandemic began.
• Beef products have seen the sharpest price increases.
• Average household grocery spending is nearing $700 per month nationally.

Comment

I’m kind of shocked by what food is costing these days.  In writing What to Eat Now, I could see that prices doubled since I wrote What to Eat in 2006.  BPut now they’ve gone up even more.  This is fine if income is going up too.

But what if it’s not?

And what if SNAP benefits are cut?

These are tough times.

To many people, full-fat milk tastes better and is more satisfying, which is reason enough to prefer it.  But the “drink full-fat milk” advice in the new dietary guidelines doesn’t make much sense to me.  Most of the nutrients in milk are in the whey portion and vitamins A and D are added to low fat milk.  This makes low- and full-fat milk pretty much equally nutritious.   Also, full-fat milk is just as processed as skim milk; the dairy industry removes the fat and adds it back to the desired percentage.

But the dairy industry wants to sell more full-fat milk and sponsors research demonstrating its superiority.  This recent example replaced their typical dairy consumption with whole milk.  If they had the right kind of intestinal bacteria, they lost weight.

The study: Qin P, Berzina L, Geiker NRW, Sandby K, Krarup T, Kristiansen K, Magkos F. Associations Between Gut Microbiome Enterotypes and Body Weight Change During Whole Milk Consumption. Nutrients. 2026; 18(4):563. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18040563

Background: Evidence is accumulating that gut bacterial communities modulate the outcome of dietary interventions.

Objective: To assess how gut microbial enterotypes correlate with obesity-related outcomes during one month of whole milk consumption.

Methods: This post hoc analysis used data from a previously published trial, which included a lead-in phase during which men with abdominal adiposity replaced habitual dairy product consumption with 400 g/day of whole milk for one month. We compared body weight, urinary metabolites, fecal metabolites, and gut microbiome composition and function based on shotgun metagenomic sequencing at the beginning and at the end of the lead-in phase between individuals with the two most prevalent enterotypes, the Bacteroides1 (B1) enterotype (n = 24) and the Ruminococcaceae (R) enterotype (n = 38).

Results: Individuals with the B1 enterotype, but not those with the R enterotype, exhibited decreases in body weight and the relative abundance of Streptococcus thermophilus. Multiple linear regression analysis identified enterotype as a strong predictor of body weight change (p = 0.0034). In addition, urinary taurine level change was positively associated with body weight change in B1 individuals, not in R individuals.

Conclusions: Our findings reveal an enterotype-specific response to an identical dietary modification, underscoring the value of integrating enterotype information into nutrition-intervention design and personalized nutrition strategies.

Funding: The FerMetS study and analyses were funded by research grants from Arla Food for Health and the Danish Milk Levy Fund. Dairy products were provided by Arla Foods amba.

Conflicts of Interest: NRWG has received grants from the Danish Agricultural and Food Council. FM has received grants from Arla Foods A/S. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or the decision to publish the results. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Comment

I checked the Arla Foods website.  It says: “Arla Foods is the 4th largest dairy company in the world and a cooperative owned by more than 12,700 dairy farmers.”  The relationship between the microbiome and body weight is truly fascinating and this study suggests that some kinds of bacteria are better than others for maintaining a healthy weight.  The authors make the point of this study clear in their conclusion: “In summary, our findings suggest that individuals with the B1 enterotype may be more prone to weight loss in response to whole milk consumption…..”  They view whole milk as a diet aid.

I subscribe to Beverage Daily, an industry publication, to learn about current trends I might otherwise miss.

I hadn’t been paying much attention to the alchohol-free trend, other than to notice the astonishing rise in the number of flavored water options in supermarkets.

With the new dietary guidelines arguing for less alcohol, this is a trend worth watching.

Here is a good place to begin:

Five emerging trends in the alcohol-free category: January puts the spotlight on alcohol-free drinks. What has this month taught us about the direction of the category in 2026 ?… Read more

The discussion of the five trends is aimed at beverage companies trying to sell products.

• Sober-curious consumers are complicated, meaning they want to try lots of drinks.
• They “zebra-stripe” (a new term to me), meaning they alternate between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks in the same occasion.
• Beverage companies need to come up with innovate ways to attract customers.
• Non-alcoholic drinks should be functional (meaning containing something that can do something special) to attract customers.
• Companies need to find new ways to attract customers to their brands.

Judging from what I’m seeing at supermarkets, introducing a new beverage is not going to be easy.  There are already loads of options out there.

Here are a couple of additional items on the alcohol-free trend:

• The most popular alcohol-free brands in the US this month, according to search data: Tracking January’s search data reveals the rising stars in the US alcohol-free category…… Read more
• Drinking less but drinking better: Understanding the moderation movement: Consumers want to be healthier; so they’re cutting back on alcohol. But is it really that simple?… Read more
• Alcohol-free beverages become part of the wellness diet:  From Dry January to everyday routines, alcohol-free beverages are integrating into wellness diets with functional, mood-enhancing ingredients… Read more
• IFT’s Food Technology: That’s the (Zero-Proof) Spirit: The worldwide movement to reduce alcohol consumption is inspiring a creative and technological revolution in zero-proof spirits and mocktails with an expanding array of ingredients, from whiskey and gin alternatives to tropical fruits and botanicals.Read More
• How GLP-1 drugs are playing into the alcohol moderation trend: The last decade has seen a steady decline in alcohol consumption. GLP-1 drugs add a new dimension… Read more 
• Building the best alcohol-free brands: The next step in the category’s evolution:  Brand loyalty in the alcohol-free category is still low. That means its all to play for……
• 5 things we’ve learned about the alcohol-free category this January: January is the month when alcohol-free drinks really have the chance to shine. What have we learned about the direction of the category in 2026?… Read more
• Dry January is dead. Long live intentional drinking:  Elimination has evolved into moderation and it’s a preview of how changing consumer preferences affect year-round demand for alcohol and non-alcohol brands alike.

In my post last week, “The government is actively promoting meat and dairy intake,” I said

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

I then noted that this government takes promotion to new levels through its milk mustache ads and pronouncements that we have ended the war on protein (protein has long been understood as a euphemism for meat).

I ended with this comment: “I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.”

Whew.  Did that ever get a response.

Readers raised two issues:

I.  The guidelines and inverted pyramid give equal weight to plant foods.

That’s not how I read them.  I see them as giving lip service to plants but prioritizing meat.  They visually present meat most prominently in the interactive graphic at realfood.gov.  Subsequent statements of the USDA and HHS secretaries also support this view.  And then there are the authors with financial links to beef industry groups who wrote the scientific reports relevent to meat.

II. This is not about meat industry lobbying; it is about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s ideology.  Well, yes.  That too.  “Ideology” refers to belief systems that structure views of the world.  Everybody has them.

I, for example, am ideologically in favor of the dietary guidelines’ advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed food, but ideologically opposed to advice to prioritize animal protein over plant protein.  I would argue that the vast preponderance of research supports that view.

People holding other ideological views disagree, evidently.  They pick different studies to read and come to different conclusions.

Two members of the nine people writing scientific reviews for the guidelines assure me that their reviews are unbiased.  But those reviews invariably reflect the ideology of the people who wrote them.

As I often point out, nutrition research is impossible to control rigorously, unless you lock people up for extended periods of time.  That is why the best controlled studies, those done in monitored metabolic wards, can only be done for a few weeks at most.  Diets are complicated; eaters are complicated; research is complicated.  Complicated research requires interpretation.  Interpretation depends on the interpreter’s particular ideology.

That is why appointing a diverse committee to look at research questions has its benefits; people with differing ideologies have to work out points of agreement.

I will say this for RFK, Jr.  He makes his ideology clear.  It prioritizes personal experience over science.

My ideology: We need science to distinguish anecdote from fact.

Let’s agree that on the meat priority issue, RFK Jr’s ideology fits well with meat industry objectives.

The meat industry has a long history of lobbying around dietary guidelines (see my book, Food Politics).

I have not seen specific reports of meat industry lobbying around the new dietary guidelines.  Apparently, no lobbying was necessary.

HHS issued a press release last week: FDA takes New Approach to “No Artificial Colors” Claims

Companies will now have flexibility to claim products contain ‘no artificial colors’ when the products do not contain petroleum-based colors. In the past, companies were generally only able to make such claims when their products had no added color whatsoever — whether derived from natural sources or otherwise. The agency sent a letter to industry providing notice of the FDA’s intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to these voluntary labeling claims.

..Additionally, the agency today also approved beetroot red, a new color option, and approved the expanded use of spirulina extract, an existing color additive derived from a natural source…This brings the total number of new food color options approved under the current administration to six.

…Ongoing progress in removing petroleum-based colors from the food supply is being publicly tracked by the FDA at Tracking Food Industry Pledges to Remove Petroleum Based Food Dyes.

Natural colors are generally extracted from vegetables, spices, or insects.  They go through industrial processing to extract the pigments and stabilize them.  (A series of videos explains the processes)

Are natural colors healthier?  They might be.  They are not associated with behavioral problems in children.

Are they safer?  Possibly, but they are not as well studied or regulated.  According to Time,

…their natural sources of color do not necessarily mean that they are safer or free of potentially harmful compounds. Natural sources may be treated with pesticides and herbicides, and are also prone to contamination with bacteria and other pathogens…To strip natural products of these contaminants, manufacturers process them with various solvents—some of which could remain in the final coloring and contribute to negative health effects…[and] it generally takes more natural color than synthetic color to make the same shade in a final food.

One additional point: color additives—regardless of source—are an indicator of ultra-processing.

Candy and cereals made with colors extracted from natural sources will still be ultra-processed.

The purpose of food colors—no matter their source—is entirely cosmetic.  They make foods look more appealing and appear to taste better. That’s why the food industry loves added colors.

Removing the more vibrant and more stable petroleum-based colors may reduce sales.

Will doing so Make America Healthy Again?  We shall see.

I guess I have to say something about the Super Bowl ads.

Much as I am in favor of eating real food and reducing ultra-processed foods, I was trained in science.  I would never go as far as this astonishing Super Bowl ad featuring Mike Tyson.

The scientist in me says yes, diets high in ultra-processed foods promote poor health and raise the risk of chronic disease and overall mortality, but no single food or food category is going to do that alone.

The sociologist in me appreciates that Mike Tyson has a powerful redemption story: His sister died at 25 from a heart attack caused by obesity, he has a weight problem, is now a vegan, and is atoning for his conviction as a rapist.

Coming from him, “Processed Food Kills” and “Eat Real Food” are powerful messages.

The Super Bowl venue ensures that they will reach a wide audience.

MAHA endorses these messages.  Even on taxicabs.

So do food advocates, although some of us wish so much of the burden of healthy eating did not fall on individuals.  As I like to put it, trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment means that you are fighting an entire food system on your own.

Michael Jacobson, former founding director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest adds:

Another ad that will run during the Super Bowl is an amusing Pepsi ad that attacks Coke. That ad immediately reminded me of CSPI’s classic The Real Bears video (almost 3 million views!) that used polar bears to attack Coke (but did not promote Pepsi!).

How much to Super Bowl ads cost?

A minimum of $8 million.  Why are they worth it?  See this contextual analysis: shared experience.

Who paid the $8 million for this one?  The MAHA Center, according to this analysis.

Think of that when you watch the other food ads, courtesy of the New York Times.

And then there’s this.  MAHA sure does have a terrific graphic designer.  If only calories didn’t matter…