The New York Times Magazine has published an astonishing investigative report about the FDA, totally worth reading: Inside the Collapse of the F.D.A.  How the new health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is dismantling the agency.

She begins with RFK Jr’s opening salvo on Twitter (X):

FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you. 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.

Her major point:

It was easy to paint the F.D.A. as a supervillain (an aggressive suppressor of sunlight, vitamins and exercise, to borrow Kennedy’s language), in part because the truth was so much more complex.

What’s impressive about this piece is its dealing with the complexities.  Here’s the critical one.

On the one hand, the agency’s regulators have a truly enormous remit: Which drugs, medical devices, food, pet food, dietary supplements, tobacco products and cosmetics we can buy — one in every five dollars we spend, by official estimates — comes down to the decisions they make. On the other hand, the agency itself is profoundly under-resourced…In fact, its federal budget is roughly the size of the budget of the local school district in Montgomery County, Md., where it is based.

I could go on quoting but everyone should read this piece to realize what is at stake in the current destruction of the FDA—a lot.  We need the FDA, and we need it to be much, much stronger, not weaker.

I want to add one point not discussed in the article: unlike the other agencies in the U.S. Public Health Service, which get their funding from congressional health committees, the FDA gets its funding from congressional agriculture committees.  This dates back to 1906 when the forerunner of the FDA was created as part of the USDA.   When the FDA was transferred to the forerunner of Health and Human Services, its funding remained with agriculture committees, which could not care less about its functions.

The article is long.  If you don’t want to read the whole thing, here are the take-home lessons:  What to Know About the Collapse of the F.D.A. 

USDA Secretary Rollins held a press conference with the dairy industry to announce the removal of artificial color dyes.

This is a voluntary, proactive pledge to eliminate the use of Red 3, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 from ice cream and other frozen dairy desserts by 2028.  “I applaud the International Dairy Foods Association for stepping up to eliminate certified artificial colors,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The American people have made it clear—they want real food, not chemicals. Together with Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, we’re holding the food industry accountable and driving a nationwide effort to Make America Healthy Again.”

In 2029, when the dyes are out of ice cream, ice cream will still be ice cream.  Alas.

Here’s an update on what’s happening with artificial colors.  But before getting to it, here’s the result of my research trip to England: Froot Loops with no artificial colors.   Check out what they look like.

Iceland Food Warehouse, Oxford. Photo Jean Lavigne.

And now for the latest on the cancelling of artificial color additives.

• Synthetic dyes are out. Here’s who’s in and how they’re achieving it:  Major food companies like General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Conagra and Smucker are leading a sweeping shift away from synthetic colours. Here’s where the US food industry stands right now… Read more
• FDA redraws the rainbow to dye another day:  The storm over artificial dyes is clearing and the FDA is ushering in a brighter, cleaner food palette. With Red No 3 fading fast and new colours blooming, brands are now racing to catch the rainbow… Read more
• FDA approves natural blue color, urges accelerated phaseout of synthetic red dye The White House asked companies to remove Red No. 3, an artificial color in candy and cereal, sooner than the 2027 deadline put in place by the Biden administration.
• Texas AG targets Mars over continued use of artificial colours: Despite making a public commitment nearly a decade ago to phase out artificial colours, the M&M’s and Skittles maker is in hot water over its continued use of synthetic dyes in the US… Read more

HHS Secretary RFK Jr says he thinks we need more dairy foods in our diets.

“I grew up in a world where milk was the healthiest thing that you could eat,. There’s a tremendous amount of emerging science that talks about the need for more protein in our diet and more fats in our diet. And there’s no industry that does that better than this industry.

More protein?  Most Americans already consume more than twice the amount required.  Protein is in all minimally processed foods.  If you eat enough calories, you are getting plenty of protein.

The focus on protein is baffling to nutritionists like me.  Surveys report that 70% of us are trying to eat more protein.

This has led to protein madness.

To give just one example (another nutritionally hilarious product):

Plants have less protein than meat, dairy, or eggs, but those amounts add up.  Their amino acid composition is not as close to ours as are animal foods, but eating a variety of plants takes care of the differences.

RFK Jr’s push of protein and fat translates to a push for eating more meat and dairy foods.  Recall Brooke Rollins’ statement about getting rid of leftist ideologies in the dietary guidelines?  I was guessing that meant eating more plants.

We have to wait and see what the guidelines say when they come out, and I’m braced for it.

The President of the United States says Coke should switch from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to cane sugar.

My response: this is nutritionally hilarious.

• HFCS is glucose and fructose separated in liquid form.
• Cane sugar (sucrose) is glucose and fructose bonded, but quickly split (so is beet sugar, but the President is not mentioning it).
• Both HFCS and cane sugar are sugar(s).  Both provide about 4 calories per gram.
• There may be people who can taste the difference, but when Coke found that nobody could tell the difference, it switched from sucrose to HFCS.

I’ve written about this previously, most recently in 2014: HFCS politics, continued. Endlessly.

Yes, HFCS is derived from genetically modified corn, but that doesn’t change the basic biochemistry, taste, or health effect.

Note: A 12-ounce Coke has 39 grams of either one.  It doesn’t matter which sugar is used; it’s too much to be consumed at one time.

At the time Coke switched to HFCS, it was much cheaper.  It is still cheapter but less so (because half of corn production is used to produce ethanol).

It will cost Coke more to replace HFCS with cane sugar or even beet sugar (which is identical to cane sugar).  So Coke is not exactly committing to doing this.

As Reuters reports, the switch would raise prices for consumers and be tough on US farmers too.

On this issue, I have to agree for once with the Corn Refiners Association.

This is one of those issues it will be enormous fun to watch.  Stay tuned.

A new study says eating saffron will improve your mood.  Guess who funded it.

The Study: Lopresti AL, Smith SJ, Marx W, Díez-Municio M, Morán-Valero MI. An Examination into the Effects of a Saffron Extract (Affron) on Mood and General Wellbeing in Adults Experiencing Low Mood: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Nutr. 2025 Jul;155(7):2300-2311. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.024. Epub 2025 May 23. PMID: 40414301.

Background: Saffron, derived from the stigmas of the Crocus sativus flower, has been shown in previous trials to have antidepressant effects in clinically diagnosed adults. However, the recruitment of small sample sizes, short treatment periods, and variability in the quality of studies have negatively impacted the strength of conclusions.

Objectives: The purpose of this 2-arm, 12-wk, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to examine the effects of supplementation with a saffron extract (Affron) on mood and sleep in adults experiencing subclinical depressive symptoms.

Methods: Two hundred and two adults aged 18-70 with depressive symptoms were supplemented with 28 mg saffron daily or a placebo.

Results: Compared to the placebo, saffron was associated with greater improvements in the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale….However, in the other secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of between-group differences.

Conclusions: This study…provides evidence supporting the beneficial effects of 3 mo of saffron supplementation on depressive symptoms in adults. Large placebo responses were evident in this study, which require consideration in future trials.

Funding: We thank Pharmactive Biotech Products, SLU, for funding the project and supplying the investigational products used for this
study.

Conflict of interest: ALL is the Managing Director of Clinical Research Australia, a contract research organization that receives research funding rom nutraceutical companies… SJS is an employee of Clinical Research Australia. WM has received funding and/or attended events funded by Cobram Estate Pty. Ltd. and Bega Dairy and Drinks Pty. Ltd…MD-M and MIM-V are employees of the study sponsor, Pharmactive
Biotech Products SLU.

Comment:  Let’s hear it for placebo responses!  Saffron is an extremely expensive spice usually used in pinch amounts.  If it’s hard for you to imagine that it could do anything to affect depression, subclinical depression yet, there’s a good reason for that—although saffron makes food taste delicious and that alone is a mood-improver.  But this study was done with a supplement, not the expensive spice.  Overall, this is a study done under contract from the supplement’s manufacturer by employees of the manufacturer.  As such, it is explicitly marketing research.  The interpretation of this study is predictable if you know who funded it.  The title of the study alone should generate the question: Who funded this?

NIH, and agency of the Department of Health and Human Services under Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has issued its strategic plan for nutrition research for the next five years.

The Table of Contents states the goals and research objectives.

The goals:

1. Advance Science
2. Support the generation of evidence to address priority diet, nutrition, and health outcomes
3. Build Capacity and Strengthen the Field of Nutrition Science
4. Foster Stewardship, Collaboration, Transparency, and Accountability in Nutrition Science Research

I went right to #2.  Its impact objectives:

1. Improve the Approaches and the Precision of Methods to Assess the Determinants of Malnutrition
2. Support the Generation of Evidence to Enhance Nutrition Regulatory Science

Oops.  Nothing about chronic disease?  Where is the MAHA agenda in this?

On closer look, the report mentions chronic disease 8 times.  It recognizes the problem, stating that

food systems and the food environment…are critical factors affecting consumer choices; dietary patterns; and, ultimately, health. Using this framework, ONR [Office of Nutrition Research]…will address critical components of the nutritional ecology—such as the shaping and impact of consumer attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding food systems—and consider key questions to identify knowledge gaps in nutrition science that have direct bearing on diet-related chronic diseases….topical areas may include:

• Food production
• Food distribution and marketing
• Food delivery
• Food Is Medicine interventions
• Brain–body interactions
• Cooking and nutrition education
• Personalized and precision nutrition interventions

Ah yes, precision nutrition (targeting diets to specific individual genetic factors).

Identifying factors that predict inter- and intra-individual variability will likely decrease the burden of diet-related
chronic diseases and conditions and will also offer ways to tailor interventions for individuals and populations. [Goal 1, research objective 2]

The plan is organized around a unifying vision of precision nutrition research and includes four strategic goals and five crosscutting research areas. These opportunities complement and enhance ongoing research efforts across NIH to improve health and to prevent or treat diseases and conditions affected by nutrition. [Box 1]

The strategic goals are organized around four questions:

• What do we eat, and how does it affect us?
• What and when should we eat?
• How does what we eat promote health across our lifespan?
• How can we improve the use of food as medicine?

These are good questions, but to me they seem like public health questions.  It’s hard for me to imagine how they could be answered through precision nutrition.

I look forward to finding out how NIH plans to do this.

I wanted to know more when I read this article summary:

Food fraud: Spotlight on the most heavily targeted food products: New research shows the same foods – from beverages to dairy – are impacted by food fraud year after year… Read more

And what are they?

What kind of fraud are they talking about?

Leaning on FoodChain ID data, the report shows that botanical and animal origin fraud were the most prevalent in 2024 and over the last 10 years, with dilution also a major issue. In 2024, the use of non-standard substances was classed in third. “Botanical and animal origin fraud were the most reported type of food fraud in 2024, followed by use of non-food substance and dilution…of these frauds, using non-food substances in food has the potential to do the most harm as seen in the Sudan dyes in chilli powder and melamine in infant formula incidents.”

Shades of the early days of food adulteration.  It’s still happening, apparently.

Sugar has long been thought to increase risks for type 2 diabetes, but whether it really does has not been easy to prove and is still a matter of debate.

A new study suggests one reason why.  It distinguishes between the effects of sugar in beverages (increased risk) and foods (no increased risk).

The study: Dietary Sugar Intake and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.

Method: The study analyed prospective cohort studies reporting relative measures of incident T2D [type 2 diabetes] risk by categories of dietary sugar (total, free, added, fructose, sucrose) or 2 beverage sources (non-diet sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], fruit juice) in healthy adults.

Results: 

• Each additional serving of SSB and fruit juice was associated with a higher risk of T2D.
• In contrast, 20 g/d intakes of total sugar and sucrose were inversely associated with T2D.
• No associations were found for added sugar…or fructose.

The figure shows the effect of 20 g/d sugar intake on T2D risk, in comparison to typical doses of SSB and fruit juice.

A) shows the bar plot illustrating the summary effect of a 20 g/d intake for different sugar types on risk of T2D.

B) compares these doses to typical servings sizes per day of SSBs (39 g/d) and fruit juice (23.3 g/d).

Conclusion: These findings suggest that dietary sugar consumed as a beverage (SSB and fruit juice) is associated with incident T2D risk. The results do not support the common assumption that dietary sugar (i.e., total sugar and sucrose), irrespective of type and amount, is consistently associated with increased T2D risk.

Comment: Sugar is still nutritionally empty, causes tooth decay(especially if water is unfluoridated), and is best consumed in small amounts.  But if this finding holds up, the moral is clear:  Don’t drink your calories.