Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Mar 26 2025

Does the public trust the food industry? Not so much.

It turns out, the public doesn’t trust the food industry much.

Food industry trust in the dumps, but things are looking up: Consumer trust in the food industry is at dire levels. But there are modest reasons for positivity. What can the industry do to build on dwindling trust?… Read more

Why not?

 

 

 

 

 

This is affecting brand loyalty.  For this, price is also an issue.

Brand loyalty is declining, but the death knell isn’t ringing yet: The fight between branded and private label has never been so intense, yet it appears the former is losing significant ground. So what’s going on?… Read more

And, Americans don’t trust food and nutrition science either, especially if it comes from food industry scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My advice?

If the food industry wants trust from the public, it should behave in a trustworthy manner.

As long as food companies put profits first, they are at high risk of compromising ethics, integrity, and trust.

The investment system would do better on trust if it valued social commitments.

This is an old story, but one worth retelling.  See this, for example.

Mar 25 2025

Keeping up with U.S. food politics

It’s not easy to figure out what’s happening on the food front in DC these days, but a lot of it does not sound good.  Here are a bunch from last week.

I.  Food Bank Support. USDA stops $500 million worth of shipments of food to food banks.

Food banks across the country are scrambling to make up a $500 million budget shortfall after the Trump administration froze funds for hundreds of shipments of produce, poultry and other items that states had planned to distribute to needy residents.

The Biden administration had slated the aid for distribution to food banks during the 2025 fiscal year through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which is run by the Agriculture Department and backed by a federal fund known as the Commodity Credit Corporation. But in recent weeks, many food banks learned that the shipments they had expected to receive this spring had been suspended.

II.  Line speeds in meat processing plants.  USDA announces “streamlined” meat processing.  This is USDA-speak for increasing line speeds in processing plants, something terrifying to anyone who cares about worker safety and food safety.  As Food Safety News puts it, this is unsafe at any speed—again.

Once more, policymakers are making the same catastrophic mistake. Once more, industries are downplaying risk while lives hang in the balance. Once more, we are choosing efficiency over responsibility…It’s a reckless increase in processing speeds that threatens to overwhelm the very safeguards meant to protect both workers and consumers.

III.  Food safety rules.  FDA puts food safety rule on hold

In an announcement on March 20, the Food and Drug Administration said it intends to publish a proposed rule “at a later time.” The rule has already been published and approved and was set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2026. The rule was mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act, which Congress approved in 2010.

The food industry has been pushing back against the rule since before it was written, citing expenses. Industry groups applauded the FDA’s postponement of enforcement of the rule.

IV.  Seed Banks.  DOGE is trying to fire staff of the USDA’s National Plant Germplasm System, which stores 62,000 seed samples.

In mid-February, Trump administration officials…fired some of the highly trained people who do this work. A court order has reinstated them, but it’s unclear when they will be allowed to resume their work.

On the other hand, a few useful things are happening.

V.  Infant formula. FDA launches “Operation Stork Speed to Expand Options for Safe, Reliable, and Nutritious Infant Formula for American Families.  This will involve

  • Increased testing for heavy metals and other contaminants.
  • Encouragement of companies to develop new infant formulas
  • Reviewing baby formula ingredients
  • Collaborating with NIH to address research gaps

This is in response to the loss in availability of infant formula due to contamination at an Abbott plant.  I don’t see anything in this initiative aimed at enforcing food safety rules in production plants, or anything about the ridiculous pricing of infant formula, which can range four-fold for essentially identical products (all infant formulas have to meet FDA nutrition standards).  See: FDA’s main page on Infant Formula.

According to FoodFix, this announcement came after RFK Jr. met with the CEOs of major formula makers, but before Consumer Reports issued a report finding “concerning” levels of heavy metals in some infant formula products.

USA Today reports:

The FDA’s testing is ongoing. To date, it has completed testing of 221/340 samples, which at this time, do not indicate that the contaminants are present in infant formula at levels that would trigger a public health concern.

VI.  Chemical contaminants in food. FDA has published a Chemical Contaminant Transparency Tool.  This gives action levels for each contaminant. Presumably, the 221 tests gave results that did not exceed those levels.

Comment

I’m not seeing much about Making America Healthy Again, beyond encouraging the elimination of artificial colors and trying to do something about the GRAS loophole, which lets companies essentially self-determine whether additives are safe.  Those are both worth doing, and have been a long time coming.  I still want to see this administration take strong action on:

  • Ultra-processed food
  • Food Safety
  • School meals
  • Support for small and medium farms

The cancelling of funding for the Diabetes Prevention Program, a 30-year longitudinal study, seems at odds with MAHA.  I hope the funding gets restored quicky.

Mar 24 2025

Industry-funded study of the week: prunes

The Study:  Prunes May Blunt Adverse Effects of Oral Contraceptives on Bone Health in Young Adult Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.  DeMasi, Taylor et al.  Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 9, 104417.

The rationale: Oral contraceptives (OCs) may promote bone loss.  Prunes may prevent that.

Objective: Will consuming 50 g of prunes daily prevent bone loss or increase bone accrual in OC users.

Methods: Ninety women were randomly assigned to a control group not using OCs (non-OC), an OC group not consuming prunes (OC), and an OC group consuming 50 g prunes daily (OC+P) for 12 mo.

Results:  Bone mineral density (BMD) did not change among groups, but ultradistal radius BMD increased over time within non-OC and OC+P groups. Trabecular density of the distal tibia decreased within the OC group.

Conclusions: OC use promoted minor negative effects on bone.  Consuming prunes “tended to provide a potential protective effect on trabecular density of the distal tibia and ultradistal radius in young women.”

Conflict of interest: “The authors report no conflict of interest.”

Funding: “This study was funded by the California Prune Board. The California Prune Board had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

Comment: I’ve put the wiggle words in red.  Why, you might well ask, would anyone expect two ounces of prunes a day to have anything to do with bone loss?  The authors do not say.  They merely observe an association of prunes with bone health in animals, and say they had seen minor prevention of bone loss in postmenopausal women in previous research.  I’m all for eating prunes if you like them, but bone health seems like a stretch.  So does the statement that the Prune Board had no role in the study.  It funded the study.  It is not going to fund studies that might not produce favorable results.  Industry funding exerts influence from the get go, whether or not recognized by authors as a conflict of interest.

 

Mar 21 2025

Weekend reading: Thinking about food systems advocacy

The United Nations has issued a digital Food Systems Thinking Guide for UN Resident Coordinators and UN Country Teams with tools and information for working collectively towards food system transformation.

It is intended as a working draft.  It provides an easy mechanism for immediate feedback.

You have to do a lot of scrolling.  When you do, you will get to key questions:

  • What is a food systems approach and why does it matter?
  • What is the state of food systems in my country?
  • Who are the actors influencing the foods system?
  • What are barriers and entry points to food system transformation?
  • How can I integrate foods systems approach into programming?
  • How can I communicate and advocate for foods systems transformation?

I took a look at the actors.  This section provides resources for engaging with stakeholders.

I also looked at barriers.  It lists things to consider and provides resources.

And I looked at communication strategies.  This one is much more complete and has useful videos and key messages along with the resources.

I see this as an advocacy toolkit focused on food system transformation.  Happy to have it.  Try it and give the UN some feedback on it to make it even better and more complete.

Mar 20 2025

The cost of diet drugs: a problem for individuals but also states

I was interested to see this item in Politico: Diet drug boom weighs heavily on state budgets.

Soaring costs of weight-loss drugs are leading some states to scrap the benefit for state employees…After Colorado’s spending on the highly effective but costly drugs classified as GLP-1s, which include Ozempic and Wegovy, more than quadrupled from 2023 to 2024 — with usage doubling every six months — the state health plan is proposing ending coverage, arguing it’s financially unsustainable….Michigan, which covers about 49,000 state employees, spent $5.2 million on weight-loss drugs in 2022. That number skyrocketed to $17.5 million in 2023 and $36 million in 2024.

Politico points out that “the number of Americans taking the drugs for weight loss rose more than 700 percent between 2019 and 2023.”

If the Republicans succeed in slashing Medicaid, those costs will also go to states.

Lilly is offering cost savings for some Zepbound users, but the drugs will still run around $500 a month—$6000 per year.

Making America Healthy Again means having a health care system—including drugs—that is accessible and affordable for all Americans.

Time to speak up everyone.

Phone numbers for leaving comments:

  • The White House: 202-456-1111
  • U.S. House of Representatives:  202-225-3121  Website: http://www.house.gov
  • U.S. Senate: Telephone: 202-224-3121
Mar 19 2025

Dietary Guidelines in the MAHA era

USDA and HHS have announced an update on the dietary guidelines process.

A quick recap: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee released its report last year.  The agencies are responsible for writing the actual guidelines, based on that report or not.

The USDA Secretary, Brooke Rollins, writes:

Secretary [of HHS] Kennedy and I have a powerful, complementary role in this, and it starts with updating federal dietary guidance. We will make certain the 2025-2030 Guidelines are based on sound science, not political science. Gone are the days where leftist ideologies guide public policy.”

Leftist ideologies?  She has to be kidding.  Since when did leftist ideologies influence the dietary guidelines?

Oh.  Wait.  Silly me.  I get it.  She means meat. 

Plant-based = leftist ideology.

You don’t believe me?  See Nina Teicholz’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal:  Meat will make America Healthy Again.

Ms. Rollins and Mr. Kennedy should reject suggestions from an expert committee that the 2025-30 federal guidelines place an even greater emphasis on plant-based proteins and that they recommend “reducing intakes of red and processed meats.” As the Agriculture Department found in 2010, there is either “no relationship” or a “limited inconsistent” relationship between any protein type and chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Protein, sure.  But meat?  Consistent evidence for years indicates that people in industrialized countries would be healthier eating less meat and more plants.  Less does not necessarily mean none; it means less than currently consumed and a lot less in some cases.

If USDA and HHS are serious about Making Americans Healthier Again, they will revise the Dietary Guidelines according to the science.  In my view, that means advising eating less of ultra-processed foods, as well as meat.

Mar 18 2025

The latest on MAHA: a video

The White House posted this video last week.

I can’t figure out how to make it play on this site, but you can watch it at this link.

It’s worth watching:

  • It comes straight from the White House.
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, does not recognize or know how to pronounce the vitamin riboflavin.
  • USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins appears in this as a self-identified MAHA mom.
  • It makes the point that food labels are hard to read.
  • It issues a direct threat to the food industry to get artificial colors out of their products.
  • It’s fun.

It also says a lot about MAHA priorities.  I’m all for getting artificial colors out of the food supply, but I view other food issues as far more important.

I want to see RFK Jr videos about what FDA is planning to do to really Make America Healthy Again.  What, for example, is the agency planning to do about:

  • Food safety
  • Ultra-processed foods
  • Food marketing to kids
  • Toxic chemicals in the food supply
  • Mercury in fish
  • School food

These are all issues he has raised, many of them requiring collaboration with USDA, EPA, FTC, and other agencies.

Tomorrow: Dietary Guidelines.

 

 

 

Tags:
Mar 17 2025

Industry-funded research of the week: Pistachio Request for Proposals (too late, alas)

Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America forwarded this email announcement sent to members of the American Society for Nutrition (I am a member, but somehow missed this).  It’s an example of how industry-funded research gets started.

This is a sponsored message from the American Pistachio Growers, an ASN [American Society for Nutrition] Sustaining Partner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you can see how this works.  The Pistachio trade association is looking for research to show how eating pistachios enhances sleep, improves performance, and supports weight management (like taking GLP-1 drugs).

If research proposals do not support these objectives, they won’t be funded.

I realize I’m posting this too late for you to apply and test this statement.  Sorry about that.  Next time!