I thought I should say something about the new state bans on using SNAP benefit cards to buy sodas and other kinds of junk foods.

More states ban soda and ‘junk food’ purchases from SNAP benefits: Varying restrictions add more confusion for food companies already struggling with slowing sales.

This article, from Food Dive, says

• Twelve states have now received approval to restrict benefits, with bans set to commence next year. The Department of Health and Human Services said the waivers aim to end the “subsidization of popular types of junk food.”

It points out that the bans vary in what they cover, and define candy and soft drinks in different ways.

Iowa, which has one of the most restrictive set of SNAP rules, is banning sugar-sweetened beverages that contain less than 50% juice, including sodas, energy drinks and flavored waters. The state is also restricting drink concentrates and powdered mix-ins.

The USDA has a web page devoted to SNAP Waivers (of existing rules governing what SNAP participants are allowed to buy).

Comment: I have long been in favor of pilot projects for banning sugar-sweetened beverages on SNAP (I was a member of the SNAP to Health Commission which issued a report in 2012.

Sodas are composed of sugars and water and have calories but no other redeeming nutritional value.

Even though we sympathized with the arguments that restrictions on purchases are condescending, we recommended pilot projects—along with research to evaluate them.  Would the bans change purchasing habits?  How would SNAP recipients feel about them?

It’s pretty clear how retailers feel about them.  Ouch.  Reduced sales.

The USDA turned down all requests for researchable pilot projects, ostensibly for logistical reasons.  Whatever.

Times have changed.

USDA’s SNAP waivers do not require research, unfortunately. I hope somebody in those states does some before-and-after data collection.

I worry that the waivers will be used as wedges to further cut SNAP benefits.

This one is a wait-and-see.  Stay tuned.

The big news in my world last week was the leaking of drafts of the forthcoming MAHA strategy report.

At least four reporters sent me copies for comments.

• Leaked version dated August 6 (highlighted to indicate food issues)
• Leaked version dated August 11 (no highlights)

I did not do a careful comparison.  The main difference seems to be that the earlier version had this useful graphic about MAHA’s strategic intentions.

All of this may change when the final report is released, but here are my initial thoughts on its food sections.

First, the background: The first report, despite the hallucinated references, was a strong indictment of this country’s neglect of the health of our children. It stated the problems eloquently. It promised that the second report would state policies to address those problems.

As for this report: No such luck.

It states intentions, but when it comes to policy, it has one strong, overall message: more research needed.

Regulate?  Not a chance, except for the long overdue closure of the GRAS loophole (which lets corporations decide for themselves whether chemical additives are safe).

Everything else is waffle words: explore, coordinate, partner, prioritize, develop, or work toward.”

One good thing: the report mentions marketing to children, but only to “explore development of industry guidelines.”  Nothing about regulation.  This is too little too late.  We know what food marketing does to kids.  It’s way past time to stop it.

A few comments on specific issues mentioned.

• “USDA will prioritize precision nutrition research…”  USDA?  NIH is already doing that, and it is the antithesis of public health research, the kind that really will make Americans healthier.
• The report emphasizes color and other chemical additives (we knew it would), a definition (not regulation) of ultra-processed foods, and a potential front-of-pack label (unspecified).
• It says it will modernize infant formula (really? how?), and will work to increase breastfeeding (again, how?).

And then there are the contradictions:

• Improve hospital food, but the administration is taking money away from hospitals.
• Teach doctors about nutrition (how?)
• Prioritize “whole healthy foods” in nutrition assistance programs (but cut SNAP and WIC)
• Expand EFNEP (but eliminate SNAP-ED)
• Promote healthy meals in child care settings (also defunded)
• Encourage grocery stores in low-income areas (how?)

How are they going to do this?  It doesn’t say.

Are there any teeth behind it?  It doesn’t look like this is anything more than voluntary (and we know how voluntary works with the food industry; it doesn’t).  None of this says how or has any teeth behind it.

And oh no!  MAHA boxes.  I’m guessing these are like what got given out—badly—during the pandemic. 

Resources

• Politico: it published the first leak.  Its current headline: “quite industry friendly”
• Stat News (I’m quoted): This covers the entire report and emphasizes the reneging on trying to reduce pesticides in response to industry lobbying
• New York Times (I’m quoted): also a much longer story emphasizing the pesticide problem
• Washington Post: also emphasizing ag issues
• CNN (I’m quoted): lots on processed foods, as well
• Civil Eats: Should Regenerative Farmers Pin Hopes on RFK Jr.’s MAHA?
• Center for Science in the Public Interest: 

It is striking that the leaked Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Strategy Report, like its AI-assisted predecessor, embodies much of the idiosyncratic beliefs about food and drugs of one person: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He might be right about food dyes, but the report’s recommendations to alter our vaccine framework, restructure government agencies, and promote meat and whole milk are going to promote disease, not health…

The report…seems to twist itself into knots to make it clear that it will not be infringing upon food companies….But we also need to judge the administration by what it does, not what it says. And the administration’s attacks on SNAP, Medicaid, the health insurance exchanges, and the FDA and USDA workforces are poised to make America sicker, hungrier, and more at risk from unsafe food.

• John Oliver on the MAHA movement’s lack of genuine policy initiatives (I’m quoted!)  Do not miss this one.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are a big issue in nutritiion these days, because we eat so much of them, observational studies link them to poor health, and controlled clinical trials show they cause people to eat more calories from them than from minimally processed foods.

The implication of current evidence is clear: avoid eating a lot of ultra-processed foods.

These, unfortunately, are among the most convenient, least expensive, and most profitable foods in supermarkets.

Consequently, they have triggered enormous pushback from:

• Big Food companies, which want you to eat more of their ultra-processed foods, not less
• Some nutrition scientists, who don’t like the idea of excluding the small number of ultra-processed foods that have better-than-average nutritional value
• Smaller “healthy” food companies making products that meet the definition of ultra-processed (industrially produced, full of additives, etc)

Phil Baker, an Australian scientist who is the lead author on a paper in a forthcoming Lancet series on ultra-processed foods (I’m a minor co-author on a couple of them), sent me this example of critics in the smaller “healthy” category.

The critics wrote in The Conversation: Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets – here’s what our research found 

Some UPFs do deserve concern. They’re calorie dense, aggressively marketed and often sold in oversized portions. But they’re not a smoking gun.  Labelling entire categories of food as bad based purely on their processing misses the complexity of eating behaviour.

The study:  Food-level predictors of self-reported liking and hedonic overeating: Putting ultra-processed foods in context.  Appetite Volume 213, 1 September 2025, 108029

Conclusion: “This research demonstrates how nutritional characteristics of foods contribute to self-reported liking and hedonic overeating. Considering people’s beliefs about nutrient and sensory attributes can explain more than nutrients alone, and there are negligible additive contributions from CFR [carbohydrate to fat ratio] or UPFs on food reward.”

Funding: “This study was funded by Slimming World, UK, and the School of Psychology, University of Leeds.”

Comment: And what might Slimming World be?   Oh.  It’s a subscription meal plan.

Slimming World’s Food Optimising plan is a flexible, hunger-busting way to eat real food that fits in with every taste, lifestyle, family and budget – so it’s easy to stick to and even easier to enjoy. Based on tasty, healthy foods that everyone will love, Food Optimising helps slimmers cut calories without counting them, and get real results that last.

Of needing to avoid UPFs, Slimming World says

We also feel clear guidance on the difference between what constitutes a UPF and what is a processed food but can be consumed as part of a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet is essential, to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

This company must make “healthy” UPF meals.  As we know from a recent clinical trial, people still eat more calories from UPFs, even when they are healthy (I will write about that trial as soon as Nature Medicine publishes my accompanying editorial).

In the meantime, I still think it’s a good idea to minimize intake of UPFs and eat minimally processed foods as much as possible.

My former NYU colleague, Corinna Hawkes, who now directs the Agrifood Systems and Food Safety Division at FAO in Rome, sent a link to its new publication, Transforming Food and Agriculture through a Systems Approach.

This publication provides an organizing framework for applying a systems approach to the transformation of food and agriculture. Building on evidence from systems science and practical real-world examples from countries, it identifies six core elements of a systems approach and specifies key practices and shifts needed to implement in practice. It includes examples from across the world of how systems-based practices are already being taken forward at different scales.

This publication is about food systems, why they matter, and how to use a food systems approach to improve food quality and access.

It is beautifully illustrated.  The definition:

And here’s how it works.

There is much more in this report.  I view it as a how-to manual. Use it!

Resources

• Download the publication: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd6071en
• Dr. Hawkes’ Tweet and Post about the report
• Register for briefing sessions: 12 September (11-12 CEST) or 15 September (15-16 CEST)

David Kessler, a physician, lawyer, and former FDA Commissioner, has done a great service for the Make America Healthy Again movement.  He has written a letter to RFK Jr presenting a Citizen’s Petition to the FDA: “Petition to Limit the Exposure of Refined
Carbohydrates used in Industrial Processing in order to Prevent Obesity, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease in Children and Adults.”

His petition argues that processed refined carbohydrates should no longer be considered Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).

These are:

1) refined sweeteners, including corn syrup, corn solids, glucose syrups, dextrose, invert sugar, xylose, maltose, and high fructose corn syrups; and maltodextrin

2) refined flour and starches that are subjected to food extrusion technology, including wheat, corn, tapioca, oat and potato  flour, and starches that are processed by extraction or similar technology, and

3) sucrose, refined flours, or starches that are used with emulsifiers (e.g. mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, DATEM, sodium stearoyl lactylate, polysorbates); dough conditioners and strengtheners (e.g. azodicarbonamide, L-cysteine, calcium peroxide); humectants (e.g. propylene glycol); stabilizers and gums (e.g. carboxymethylcellulose, methylcellulose); or modified starches and fillers (e.g. regelatinized starch, modified food starch, dextrins).

The carefully argued and lengthy petition makes a strong case for the unhealthy nature of processed refined carbohydrates.

Wow.

If the FDA agrees—and it has to deal with the petition within 180 days—these ingredients would no longer be GRAS and foods containing them would be considered adulterated and illegal to sell.

Here’s what I said to the press:

• This would cover an extraordinarily large percentage of foods that are ultraprocessed…an extraordinarily impressive document” (New York Times).
• Kessler has given the FDA a way to define the vast majority of ultra-processed foods. In doing so, he has handed RFK Jr a huge gift on the path to regulating these products. It’s just what MAHA has asked for. I hope they take it seriously (CNN).

Can’t wait to see how RFK Jr and the FDA handle this.

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) commission was rumored to be releasing its second report, this one on policy, yesterday, but that did not happen.

CNN reported: “New ‘Make America Healthy Again’ report to be released in weeks”

The commission is “on track” to deliver its report to the White House by August 12, White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “The report will be unveiled to the public shortly thereafter as we coordinate the schedules of the President and the various cabinet members who are a part of the Commission.”

We have had plenty of hints about what it might be promoting:

• Get rid of artificial foods dyes   [ok]
• Cane sugar is better than high fructose corn syrup.  [not when it comes to sugars and calories]
• Beef tallow is better than seed oils [not when it comes to heart disease risk].
• Close the GRAS loophole (the rule that lets food companies say whether the additives they use are safe).  [good idea, about time]

According to Politico, after an

outcry from major food businesses and farm groups that are traditionally allies to Trump, the White House promised to stay away from a crackdown on pesticides and avoid surprising the food industry with new additive targets or regulations.  Industry insiders are expecting the report to…secure more voluntary commitments from companies on the transition to natural food dyes, define “ultra-processed foods,” update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, reform the “generally recognized as safe” designation and limit recipients of federal food aid from purchasing junk food with their benefits.

I love Politico’s quote from a food industry lobbyist: “The White House has certainly gotten the message, both from agriculture and the food sector, that they are on the edge of a nanny state…Like this is Michelle Obama on steroids. The message we’ve gotten from the White House is, ‘Don’t worry, we’re not letting the crazy people run rampant over the food sector.’”

In anticipation of the report’s release, Food and Water Watch issued a statement: “Making America Healthy Will Require Big Ag Confrontation, Not Capitulation.”

The MAHA Commission’s report is a smokescreen designed to draw attention away from the Trump Administration’s dangerous deregulatory agenda. The report will be most notable in what it lacks: any real action on glyphosate, linked to rising cancer rates nationwide…Food & Water Watch research finds that Bayer has spent over $21 million on federal lobbying since the federal Cancer Gag Act…in 2023… — a 43 percent increase over the past ten quarters. State spending is also on the rise. In the past year, Bayer spent more on lobbying than any other year on record in Iowa, a key battleground state where 89% of voters oppose the Cancer Gag Act. The bill failed.

Clearly, much is at stake.  It looks like MAHA versus the realities of MAGA.

I can’t wait to see how this one resolves and hope the wait isn’t too long.  Stay tuned for this one.

Addition August 15: The New York Times seems to have gotten a leaked copy.of the report.  It has plenty to say about this early draft.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued its long-awaited advisory on ultra-processed foods and heart health (and the CDC, just in time, says just about everyone consumes more than half their calories as UPFs).

The AHA advisory is complicated, somewhat schizophrenic in my view.

It says UPFs are bad for you but makes a big deal over how some UPFs are good for you.

It does not seem helpful to make a big fuss over the few UPF foods that are nutritious.

I say this for two reasons: The number of foods in that category is small, and a study of the effects of “healthy” UPFs still finds that people eat more calories from them than they would from minimally processed foods (I will write about this study when Nature Medicine publishes it and my accompanying editorial).

The key statement in the AHA report:

A small number of UPF products such as whole-wheat breads and unsweetened soy milk with emulsifiers can support nutrition security in low-income and low-access communities by offering convenient, affordable, and palatable options. However, the strong evidence linking HFSS {high fat, sugar, salt] UPFs to increased cardiovascular risk underscores the need for targeted policy interventions to regulate their availability, marketing, and accessibility in disproportionately affected communities.

The operative word here is “small.” This is a trivial issue, not worth fussing about.

Obviously the AHA committee thought so too.

Here is my translation of the report’s recommendations.

1. Replace most UPFs with real foods.
2. Enact policies to reduce UPFs, like front-of-package labels and taxation.
3. Increase research funding on UPFs and heart health.
4. Get the FDA to do a better job of assessing and regulating food additives.

I can’t argue with that.  Good job!

Resources

• The CNN article on this report (I’m quoted)
• The AHA press release
• The report’s supplemental tables

NutraIngredients-Europe, a newsletter I subscribe to, published this gem: Salmon nose cartilage for younger skin?  Supplementing with salmon nose cartilage could significantly reduce signs of skin aging in the middle aged…. Read more

What’s great about the newsletters in this series is that they provide references.  I went right to this one.

The study: Clinical Trial of Salmon Nasal Cartilage-Derived Proteoglycans on Human Facial Antiaging: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.  J Cosmetic Dermatology, 2025;24(7):e70218.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.70218

Background: “Proteoglycans (PGs) derived from salmon nasal cartilage are believed to have antiaging effects on the skin.”

Methods: This was a two-month double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing 20 mg PG to a placebo.

Results: “Subjects receiving PG supplementation showed significant improvements in skin elasticity and hydration…with reductions in skin roughness and wrinkles…and a significant decrease in melanin content and brown spots.”

Conclusion: “Our findings suggest that daily oral intake of 20 mg PG effectively improves skin health by enhancing elasticity, hydration, and reducing signs of aging such as wrinkles and pigmentation.”

Funding: “This study was supported by the Shanghai Huiwen Biotech Corp. Ltd., Shanghai, China.”  As NutraIngredients-Europe helpfully explains, “Founded in 2001 as a spin out of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai Huiwen Biotech Co. produces its salmon nose cartilage powder using a water-based enzymatic extraction process.”

Comment: My big question: How do you harvest salmon nose cartilege?  I’m trying to imagine how they do this.  Oh well.

Dietary supplements never fail to fascinate me.  There is so little evidence for their benefits, and what evidence there is almost invariably is paid for by whoever profits from them.  Never mind.  If you are worried about wrinkles, you can give this a try.  It is unlikely to be harmful–the supplement should soon be broken down by enzymes.  Whether they really do anything or not, supplements make takers feel better.  Worth it?  You decide.