FDA has announced a joint research initiative with NIH

Under the new Nutrition Regulatory Science Program, the FDA and NIH will implement and accelerate a comprehensive nutrition research agenda that will provide critical information to inform effective food and nutrition policy actions to help make Americans’ food and diets healthier. The initiative will aim to answer questions such as:

• How and why can ultra-processed foods harm people’s health?
• How might certain food additives affect metabolic health and possibly contribute to chronic disease?
• What is the role of maternal and infant dietary exposures on health outcomes across the lifespan, including autoimmune diseases?

This sounds terrific —and I’m all for all of this.

An article about it in JAMA, of all places, raises some concerns.  It quotes Jerry Mande,

The bad news, he noted, is that the announcement may follow a recent pattern within the federal government of unveiling an initiative but providing few details on how it will be executed. The April press conference held by the HHS and the FDA on eliminating synthetic food dyes is one such example, in his view.

It also quotes me as noting that the announcement is short on detail and even shorter on timeline.

The food industry is in a difficult position…Ultraprocessed foods are among their most profitable, and food companies consider the ability to market to children to be essential to their business models. They could voluntarily start making and marketing healthier products and reducing unhealthy ingredients, but experience tells us that they won’t do this unless forced.

MAHA has now issued requests for proposals on two initiatives.

I.  A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals

This pilot study supports a comprehensive, FDA-led initiative aimed at evaluating the toxicological safety and nutritional quality of meals served in all schools that actively participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), including both public and nonprofit private schools…Schools must be equipped to engage in structure intervention activities and collaborate with a partner to support the transition to minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed.

The goals of this funding opportunity

1. Identify contaminants (e.g., heavy metals) present in school meals.
2. Promote whole food offerings and minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed,
3. Measure potential changes in contaminant levels and nutritional content pre- and post-intervention.

Yes, let’s give kids real foods in school, preferably and whenever possible cooked from scratch.  But,

• Are heavy metals a problem in school meals?  What other contaminants are of concern?  Why?
• How are schools to increase whole food offerings when the administration has cancelled the farm-to-school program?
• Will schools be given the additional funds needed to pay for whole foods and the staff to cook them?

The offer is for 20 grants of about $2 million each.  The timeline for submission is short (check the links for how to submit and by when).

Comment: I have a nagging suspicion that what this is really about is a push to substitute “cleaner” products for current products used in schools.  This is a concern because so many of the people now associated with HHS sell “clean” products and, no doubt, would love to sell them in schools.  Substituting one product for another will not solve the single major problem faced by school meal programs: lack of adequate funding for personnel, equipment, and fresh food.

II.  Take Back Your Health Campaign

Purpose:  The purpose of this requirement is to alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes.

Scope: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will launch a series of bold, edgy national campaigns with innovative messaging to inspire and empower Americans to reclaim control over their health. This initiative will challenge individuals to adopt disciplined, lifelong habits—centered on eating real food, physical fitness, and spiritual growth—to build a healthier, stronger nation.

As Stat News puts it, HHS plans ‘bold, edgy’ campaign on ultra-processed foods and diabetes. 

The campaign, estimated to cost between $10-20 million, will urge Americans to shift their behaviors and see health wearables as ‘cool’.  The call for pitches was posted on the evening of June 12, with a swift deadline of June 26. It asks not only for “daring, viral messaging to motivate behavior change” but for campaigns that specifically “popularize technology like wearables as cool, modern tools for measuring diet impact and taking control of your health.” Surgeon general nominee Casey Means’ health tech company, Levels, uses continuous glucose monitors and lab testing to help people track their health.

Comment: Oh dear.  Personal responsibility.  Never mind that the MAHA Commission report clearly identified environmental factors as responsible for epidemic chronic disease.  Neither of these initiatives gets at changing the “toxic” food environment.  To really do that, MAHA would need to stop food industry marketing of ultra-processed foods, especially to children.  And to get at other environmental causes of poor health, especially for children, it would need to take on the cigarette industry, the gun lobby (guns are a leading cause of kids’ deaths), and the industries that dump chemicals into the water and food supplies.

I’m totally for educating people about healthy diets, eating real food, and physical fitness.  But education is not enough to change behavior.  Education has to be backed up by policy.

Where’s the policy?  For that, we must wait for the next MAHA Commission report, due out in August.  Stay tuned.

Thanks to my former doctoral student and now colleague, Lisa Young, for forwarding this SmartBrief mailed to members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

To its credit, the brief begins with this statement (in small print): “This is a paid advertisement for SmartBrief readers. The content does not necessarily reflect the view of SmartBrief or its Association partners.”

Also to its credit, the brief says:

Proteins can be obtained through both animal-based sources and plant-based sources. All animal-based sources, and some plant-based ones, are considered complete proteins, containing all nine essential amino acids.

It continues,

This Nutrition and Dietetics SmartBrief Special Report, brought to you by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, spotlights the importance of protein, the different types of protein, its role in combination with GLP-1 receptor agonists and expert tips from registered dietitians.

Guess what it says about the different types of protein:

Animal-sourced foods, like beef, offer a high-quality essential amino acid profile, and a unique combination of micronutrients. Read recent research on high-quality protein and its impact on growth, development, muscle health and maintenance and earn 2 CPEUs for this activity.

For reading material producted by the beef trade association, dietitians get free continuing education credits toward the total required by their association.

Does this have any influence on what dietitians say about animal vs. plant proteins?  I’m guessing the beef association hopes so.

The Chef Ann [Cooper] Foundation has issued This report.

The report, while recognizing obstacles, explains why scratch cooking matters so much.

To protect and improve children’s health — and to access cascading academic, environmental, and economic benefits — schools must serve students more minimally processed meals cooked from scratch. While most schools want to serve their students more scratch-made meals, their ability to do so is significantly limited by systemic labor, financial, and infrastructure barriers, as well as public perceptions that devalue the critical role school food professionals play in suppporting the well-being of our nation’s children.

Its food policy priorities are well worth attention, especially now when the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is focusing on schools.

Let’s hope the MAHA leadership takes a good look at this report.  Thanks Chef Ann!

________________

Published this week!  Information is here.  Get 15% off with this code: FSGPIC15

The New York Times had a long article on what we buy from China.  Lots, in a word.

From the standpoint of nutrition and food politics, I was particularly interested in these items:

If you take vitamin supplements, or eat foods fortified with vitamins, you are eating chemicals extracted or synthesized in China.

If you eat eel or frozen fish fillets, they come from China.

Tariffs will increase the prices of these items.  Watch them rise!

________________

Published this week!  Information is here. Get 15% off with this code: FSGPIC15

The California Assembly has passed a bipartisan bill banning harmful ultra-processed food in schools

California is one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to ban unhealthy ultra-processed foods in public schools under bipartisan legislation approved today by the state Assembly. AB 1264, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, directs the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to define ultra-processed foods and identify particularly harmful ones to be phased out of schools by 2032. The legislation is co-sponsored by Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group.

Whether this will go any further remains to be seen.  The bill sets an ambitious agenda:

The bill defines ultra-processed foods as those that contain one or more certain functional ingredients, including colors, flavors, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and thickening agents. OEHHA would be required to identify ultra-processed foods considered particularly harmful based on whether peer-reviewed evidence has linked the substance to cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, developmental harms, reproductive harms, obesity, Type 2 diabetes; whether the substance is hyper-palatable or may contribute to food addiction; and whether the food has been modified to be high in fat, sugar and salt.

I assume this has to go to the Senate and be signed by the governor, so at the moment this is still wishful thinking.

I hope it passes, not least because I can’t wait to find out how its authors think the state will go about identifying the specific foods blocked from schools.

In the meantime, it will be fun to watch the lobbying.

________________

Published this week!  Information is here.

Food Safety News did a piece on raw milk worth reading as a reasonable summary of risks and benefits.

For starters, it polled readers on their concerns.  The results:

• 🦠 Pathogen risks – Raw milk can harbor dangerous bacteria (64%)
• ⚖️ Lack of regulation – Insufficient oversight of raw milk production (12%)
• 🧑‍🌾 Misinformation – Claims about raw milk benefits are misleading (17%)
• 🥛 Not worried – I think raw milk is safe if handled properly (7%)

Raw milk is a big issue right now, with the Secretary of Health and Human Services filmed downing shots of raw milk at the White House, where he was recording a podcast with Paul Saladino.

Saladino — who goes by the moniker Carnivore MD — posted a teaser for the upcoming episode, in which a cameraman presents Kennedy with shots of raw milk mixed with glyphosate-free honey. “I strongly believe diet is the biggest lever you can pull to heal and improve your health,” Saladino wrote in the caption for the clip, which shows him and the secretary for Health and Human Services chugging a product that the CDC warns “can expose people to germs such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, and Salmonella.”

What to say about all this?

Raw milk is generally safe until it isn’t, but when it isn’t, it is very unsafe.

As Food Safety News summarizes, “From 1998 to 2018, the CDC recorded 202 raw milk outbreaks, causing 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations, with many affecting children.”

Pasteurization has been highly effective in preventing transmission of illness from milk; it is one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century.

If you want to drink raw milk, you are taking a risk, and one not readily predictable.

You can reduce the risk by drinking raw milk only from farmers you trust to produce it with:

• Rigorous hygeine and safety procedures (diligently followed)
• Frequent testing (although safety experts say milk can never be tested too often)
• Separation of cows (milk from one cow is less likely to be unsafe than milk pooled from many)

Is raw milk worth the risk?

I don’t think so but that’s just me.

If you choose to drink raw milk,

• Choose it carefully
• Understand and be willing to deal with the potential consequences.

_________________

Published today!  Information is here.

I first read about this in a Forbes article: New Study: Front-Of-Pack Warning Labels Don’t Lower Obesity Rates.

As the FDA mulls interpretive food warning labels, a Georgetown University study shows these schemes have been powerless to halt obesity trends.  In an attempt to tackle stubbornly high adult obesity rates over 40% in the US, the FDA is advancing a proposed front-of-pack (FOP) label that highlights whether a food or beverage contains low, medium or high levels of sugar, saturated fats and sodium. But a new study from Georgetown University titled Can Front-of-Pack Product Labeling Fix the Obesity Crisis says that the FDA has not learned the lessons from other countries using such interpretive food warning labels: there is no hard evidence that they have been effective in improving consumer diets or in arresting rising obesity rates.

The author of this article is Hank Cardello, executive-in-residence at Georgetown McDonough’s Business for Impact.

If you click on the link to the study, you discover than Cardullo himself is its author.

Hank Cardello, executive-in-residence at Georgetown McDonough’s Business for Impact, has published a white paper titled,“Can Front-of-Pack Product Labeling Fix the Obesity Crisis?” This paper argues that front-of-pack (FOP) food labeling has not led to meaningful improvements in public health outcomes. It evaluates data from multiple countries to test the efficacy of other FOP labeling initiatives.

Both the article and his White Papert disclose the funder: the Consumer Brands Association, formerly known as the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which represents Big Food.

Comment

I can understand why the food industry does not like warning labels or any other front-of-pack label that might reduce product sales, which studies of Latin American warning labels show they do.  So this piece is predictable.

If you want people to lose weight, they have to eat less.  Eating less is very bad for business.

What good are front-of-pack labels?  At best they alert consumers to avoid high-calorie foods formulated to get us all to eat more of them.

But that’s just a start.  To lose weight, you also have to make sure the rest of your diet does not replace the calories you just saved.

Cardullo’s suggestion is smalled portions.  Good idea.

In the meantime, warning labels could help and I hope the FDA comes up with good ones.

________________

Published tomorrow!  Information is here.

I just got the first copy of my latest book!  It’s official publication date is June 10.

It’s published by Picador Shorts, short because the books in this series, on Oceans, Rivers, and Streams, are mostly under 100 pages (mine is 86).

Here’s what Macmillan, the owner of Picador, says about the book (and says how you can order it)

America’s leading nutritionist teaches you how to navigate the fish counter.

A standalone extract from the newly revised edition of her groundbreaking What to Eat (which is being reissued as What to Eat Now).

What to Eat Now comes out November 11.  More on that when the time comes.

In the meantime, here are the other books in this series.  I love the covers.