Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Jul 30 2026

Annals of food marketing: weird, wonderful, and profitable

[First, a correction to yesterday’s post about peptides.  Peptides are injected, not consumed orally.  Therefore, they are not regulated as supplements.  I should have made this clear.  Sorry.]

I’ve been collecting examples of new foods coming on the market or already here, all of which raise the question: Do we need this?

And then there is food crime:

That’s the world we live in.  Enjoy!

_____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

 

Jul 29 2026

What will the FDA do about peptides?

Last week, MAHA proudly announced that the FDA Panel appointed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr had approved 6 of 7 Peptides over the objections of FDA scientists.

The vote is a win for HHS Secretary Kennedy and MAHA, opening a path for compounding pharmacies to prepare BPC-157, TB-500 and four other popular peptides by prescription.”

The vote was close: RFK Jr’s personal appointees outnumbered FDA scientists concerned that the peptides have not been shown to be safe or effective.

RFK Jr believes in peptides and loaded the panel with his appointees; six of his eight appointees sell peptides.

The FDA raised concerns about conflicts of interest, but to no avail.

This panel is strictly advisory.  The FDA does not have to accept its recommendations.

The big question: Will the FDA accept this recommendation or reject it?

  • If the acting head of FDA, Kyle Diamantas, accepts the panel’s recommendation, it will be a political, not scientific, decision.
  • If he rejects the panel’s recommendation, he risks losing his job.

At stake: the FDA’s role as a science-based regulatory agency.

Principles anyone?

What this is about

Peptides are small proteins (50 or fewer amino acids), some of which have regulatory actions in the body.  The best examples are GLP-1 drugs.

They have to be injected; if swallowed as pills, they would be destroyed by digestive enzymes.

For what this is about, see the excellent account in the New Yorker: Why Are People Injecting Themselves with Peptides?

The ones just approved by the FDA committee are claimed (without much in the way of evidence) to do fabulous things for health.

Peptide sellers have pushed hard for the FDA to approve them.

Comment

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for the benefits of injected peptides, but no real science.

Peptides are in a regulatory limbo.  Supplements are virtually unregulated as a result of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. Consequently, you have no way of knowing if you are getting what the label says you are getting.

But peptides are injected, and not regulated under DSHEA.  That’s what this committee is trying to fix.

Caveat emptor!

I can’t wait to see what Diamantas does on this and what happens to him if he does the right thing and rejects the panel’s recommendations.

____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

Jul 28 2026

The Cyclospora outbreak: an everyone-is-at-fault system failure: “LettuceGate”

I am outraged by the Cyclospora outbreak.  It has sickened thousands of people so far (>16,000?), and made some of them very sick.

Cyclospora is different from other foodborne pathogens.  It comes from human waste and cannot be removed by washing (although that helps some) or killed by chlorine.  It can only be removed by microfiltration or killed by heat or, maybe, ultra-violet radiation.

It needs to prevented from getting into irrigation water.

Lettuce producers have known about the Cyclospora hazard for more than a decade.  They have not acted, and neither has the government.

Hence, “Lettuce-Gate.”

Background

People are getting sick from eating some green thing—Lettuce? Parsley? Cilantro?—contaminated with a human-specific species of the parasitic microbe Cyclospora, which infects the digestive tract, causes “explosive” diarrhea, and is spread to vegetables via human feces, most likely through irrigation water.  [See: JAMA patient page: What is Cyclosporiasis?]

This outbreak is remarkable, not only for the large number of people affected, but also because of the inadequate, delayed, and chaotic oversight and response.

And the usual denials and finger-pointing.

The DOGE-decimated CDC only issued its first health advisory two weeks after cases were reported, provides much less information than it used to, and is way behind on its tracking.

The equally DOGE-decimated FDA has made a mess of communication.  It first reported finding a positive sample in lettuce from Mexico, but then retracted that result saying it was a false positive.  It also reports much less than it used to about outbreaks under investigation on its website: FDA: Investigation of 5-state outbreak of Cyclospora illnesses: Iceberg lettuce (July 2026).   It still says the contaminated lettuce came from Taylor Farms in Mexico, based on the epidemiology.

For detailed analyses of FDA and CDC failure see Phyllis Entis at eFoodAlert and Bill Marler’s.

Yes, Cyclospora is hard to investigate.  Symptoms do not occur for days or weeks after eating contaminated food.  This means the evidence was eaten or destroyed long before anyone got sick.

Food Safety Rules

Everyone who produces food is supposed to assess the production procedures for places where contamination can occur, take steps to prevent contamination at those places, monitor to make sure the steps were taken, and test to make sure the procedures are working.  The FDA is supposed to inspect to make sure all his is happening.

The Food Safety Modernization Act issued rules for produce safety.  These include standards for irrigation water, but these do not apply well to Cyclospora (because it resists washing and chlorine).

If vegetable producers took appropriate steps, contamination risks would be much lower.

But if there is no federal oversight, no inspection, and no punishment for producing unsafe food, producers won’t bother.

They particularly will not bother to test the irrigation water.  Producers hate testing.  If they find something, they have to issue recalls.  These are complicated and expensive.

Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc

What don’t we know?

Food safety attorney Bill Marler presents three maps of the United States.

  • Confirmed cases from Taco Bell
  • Where the recalled lettuce went (many more states)
  • All 2026 Cyclosporiasis cases (practically every state)

This predicts lots more cases to come.

The solution?  Treat irrigation water.  Require it to be treated.

Where are the CDC and FDA in all of this? 

One root cause: consolidation

Farm Action asks: If it isn’t Taylor Farms, then who?  It points out that “Just four companies—Taylor Fresh Foods, Cultrale-Safra, Itochu, and Bonduelle—control 54% of the U.S. fresh-cut salad market.”

The Bigger the Corporation, the Bigger the Diarrhea Outbreak

The fact that lettuce from one farm or one shredding facility could possibly have sickened thousands demonstrates the dangers of concentrating food production among a few large corporations. But the risks of corporate power run even deeper. Taylor Farms and other large produce corporations have long exerted political power to weaken food safety regulations, contributing to crises like this one. Taylor Farms representatives even met with the White House last week in an effort to distance the company from the outbreak…Recent budget cuts to federal and state health agencies further diminish the government’s ability to hold corporations accountable and protect consumers…

Advice to the Produce Industry

Advice to Eaters

  1. Cook your veggies: The New York Times has a handy recipe for stir-fried lettuce.
  2. Avoid risky bagged salads and other hazards, and eat other fruits and vegetables.

What is Congress doing?

Writing letters, according to Bill Marler.

But only one of them focuses on traceability.  And we still do not know how Cyclospora got into the lettuce.

__________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

 

Jul 27 2026

Industry-funded study of the week: Ashwagandha supplements

Here’s how I learned about this one:

KSM-66 ashwagandha may support cognition and sleep in children: Supplementation with KSM-66 ashwagandha root extract in gummy form for eight weeks is well tolerated and may enhance cognitive performance and sleep quality in children between the ages of 6 and 12, according to new research…. Read more

One look and I immediately wanted to know: Who paid for this?

To its credit, NutraIngredients said so right away:

Shri Kartikeya Pharma, India, which manufactures and supplies KSM-66 ashwagandha extract, provided financial support, the test product and a matching placebo for the study.

I dug up the original paper:

  • The study: Saxena A, Lopresti A, Sharif M, Elon N, Suri R and Langade DK (2026) A clinical assessment of the therapeutic effects of Ashwagandha root extract on cognitive performance, sleep, and fatigue in children aged 6–12 years. Front. Nutr. 13:1742138. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1742138
  • Rationale: “Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera L.Dunal) is an adaptogenic herb known to reduce stress and enhance well-being in adults.”
  • Methods: randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel-group trial in children with parent-reported concerns related to attention, concentration, or memory.
  • Results:supplementation significantly improved speed of information processing, and non-significantly improved delayed word recall, Stroop task accuracy, Corsi block span, choice reaction time accuracy, and parent-reported sleep quality.
  • Conclusion: “These findings suggest that an eight-week supplementation with ARE is well tolerated and may enhance cognitive performance and sleep quality in children.”
  • Funding: “The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication.This study was sponsored by Shri Kartikeya Pharma, India, which provided financial support, study intervention (Ashwagandha root extract), and a matching placebo for both study sites. The Sponsor had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.”
  • Conflict of interest: “The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Comment

Most of the study results were non-significant; “may enhance” equally means “may not enhance.”  As always, I’m amused by the denial of conflicted interests, as if funding by the maker of the supplement was not sufficient as a conflict.  I think it is.

____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

Jul 24 2026

Sugar Coated: Now Available for Pre-Order (at a discount!)

I walked into Autumn Leaves Books in Ithaca last week to talk to them about my event there on September 12, and was surprised and delighted to see my forthcoming book with Lisa Sutherland—for the first time!

Its official publication date is September 8.

If you pre-order it through UC Press, you get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

Early Reviews

“An entertaining examination of an industry whose many customers have a sweet tooth.” — Kirkus Reviews

“No one has done more than Marion Nestle to expose the cynical machinations of Big Food, and her collaboration with Lisa Sutherland shows how breakfast cereal is the perfect symbol of that system.”—Mark Bittman, founder of Community Kitchen and Bittman’s

“The cereal box doesn’t just sell food—it manufactures belief. Marion Nestle and Lisa Sutherland reveal how ultra-processed products are marketed as healthy through a carefully engineered blend of regulation, psychology, and design.”—David A. Kessler, MD, New York Times best-selling author of Diet, Drugs and Dopamine: The New Science of Achieving a Healthy Weight and former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration

“Cereal as never before! This book lays bare a fascinating and troubling world of sophisticated food engineering, manipulative marketing and packaging, and profit, and it has been so needed, for so long.”—Kelly D. Brownell, Dean Emeritus and Robert L. Flowers Professor Emeritus, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University

“Nestle and Sutherland bring us the world on a box: the world of nutrition and health claims relating to food products, daffy and ingenious and squirrelly and contentious as only food marketing and diet advice can be. They bring a wry eye to these antics—and will give us clearer eyes in supermarket aisles too.”—Corby Kummer, Executive Director of Food & Society at the Aspen Institute

Jul 23 2026

Big Food vs. The People: lawsuits against public health measures

A Lighthouse-led international cooperative investigation has produced Big Food vs. The Peoplea detailed account of how food and beverage companies are filing lawsuits to block public health measures that might induce people to stop buying their products.

In public, the world’s biggest and richest food companies such as Coca Cola, PepsiCola, and Mondelez say they want to be part of the solution. But behind closed doors, they have taken governments to court to delay, dilute, and derail public health laws, which the companies say violate their rights.

These investigations found:

– 239 lawsuits were filed between 2010 and 2025 across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, the US, the UK, and India against public health policies targeting food and beverages such as front of pack labelling, regulating advertising of junk food to children, soda taxes, and taxes on ultra processed foods.

– The cases add up to 595 years of litigation, representing a significant burden on the governments defending their health policies.

– Of the cases brought by private companies where the plaintiff was identifiable, more than 1 in 3 came from just nine parent groups, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Mondelez.

The Guardian covered this story: ‘If all else fails, sue’: how ultra-processed food firms are using the courts to obstruct health rules.

That’s my quote in the title.

The world’s biggest UPF firms would “not fight so hard” if policies to curb intake of their products were ineffective, said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “The lawsuits tell us that public health measures reduce sales of unhealthful products”….The tactics mirrored those used by the tobacco industry for decades, Nestle said, adding: “Food companies are well trained. They follow the tobacco industry playbook to the letter. When all else fails, sue.”

Jul 22 2026

A special thank you to readers for comments on “Setting the Record Straight: Calley Means

My post last week, Setting the record straight: Calley Means, generated many comments and correspondence, for which I am most grateful.

I especially want to thank writers who produced their own pieces on this incident.

Additions

Tags:
Jul 21 2026

Call for letters of support: Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act

[To subscribers: technical problems with WP Engine prevented this from being sent out yesterday, so I’m trying it again]

I received this request from Thomas Eagen, Senior Health Policy Advisor, Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee:

I am reaching out with big news: Senator Sanders bill, the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, is scheduled to be marked-up in the HELP Committee next Wednesday July 22! …,. this legislation would require strong front-of-package warning labels on junk food and restricts companies from using child-directed ads for these products. This includes sugar-sweetened beverages, products high in added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, and ultra-processed food. The bill includes a statutory definition for ultra-processed foods that excludes products meeting the FDA definition of healthy.

The bill is here at this link.  It is:

(1) To require warning labels on sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, foods and beverages containing high-intensity sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and foods high in nutrients of concern, such as added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, (2) to restrict junk food advertising to children.

Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act: Major Sections

Section 101. Health Warning Labeling of Foods; Restriction on Certain Advertisements Directed at Children.

  • Determines that a food or beverage product is considered misbranded if it is a sugar-sweetened beverage, a product with any high-intensity sweetener, an ultra-processed food, or high-in added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium if the product does not include front-of-package labeling specified in the text. T
  • Directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations to apply the labeling requirements to online retailers.
  • Defines the terms high-intensity sweetener, sugar-sweetened beverage, and ultra-processed food.
  • Gives FDA authority to regulate food and beverage marketing or advertising for products required to include front-of-package labeling that is directed at children.

Section 102. National Institutes of Health Research on Nutrition Science.

  • Directs the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand, intensify, and coordinate programs to support nutrition science research and research on the health effects of ultra-processed food.
  • Directs the NIH Director to convene a meeting of stakeholders to discuss research efforts aimed at improving nutrition and reducing the incidence of diet-related chronic disease.

Section 103. Nutrition and Physical Activity Public Education Campaign.

  • Directs the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to collaborate with national, State, Tribal, local partners, and nutrition and physical activity organizations to develop a public campaign to educate the public on how to read and understand the new labeling described in Section 2, the health risks associated with obesity, inactivity, and poor nutrition, ways to incorporate physical activity into daily living, ways to reduce risk of chronic illness, benefits of good nutrition, and strategies improve eating and drinking habits.

Section 202. Restriction on Advertisements for Junk Food Directed at Children; Required Disclosure of Any Health and Nutrient Warning Label in Advertisements.

  • Makes it unlawful for any person to market, advertise, produce, or distribute advertisement or marketing material for junk food that is child-directed advertising.

Requires the disclosure of any required front-of-package labeling described in Section 101 of this Act.

Section 203. Restoring the Federal Trade Commission’s Ability to Promulgate Rules on Children’s Advertising.

Removes the provision in the Federal Trade Commission Act that prevents the Federal Trade Commission from promulgating rules related to children’s advertising. [YES! And about time, too]

CALL FOR SUPPORT

Eagan writes: We would greatly appreciate if you were able to send a letter of support, post on social media, or express support in any other way. Please feel free to share this information with anyone else in your network who might be able to help as well. We need as much support as possible to combat the likely opposition from the food and beverage industry!

If you would like to lend your support, the easiest way to do it is this:

  • Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your senator’s office.
  • Tell the receptionist your name, that you are a constituent, the specific bill you support, and ask them to relay your support to the HELP Committee.