The alcohol industry must be exceptionally powerful (that’s why it is regulated by the Treasury Department, which cares about revenues, rather than an agency of Health and Human Services.  Its lobbying is highly effective, especially when it comes to Dietary Guidelines.

That is also most likely why the Senate Agriculture appropriations bill contains this clause [my emphasis]:

SEC . 759. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) were tasked with providing findings and recommendations on alcohol consumption for the purposes of inclusion in the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans as required by section 772 of division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Public Law 117–328): Provided, That the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture shall only consider the findings and recommendations of the NASEM report in the development of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and further, both Secretaries shall ensure that the alcohol consumption recommendations in the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans shall be based on the preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge consistent with section 5341 of title 7 of United States Code.

To understand what this is about, consider the NASEM and two other reports on alcohol that came out recently.

As I discussed here previously,

I.  The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health says moderate drinking

• Reduces all-cause mortality (moderate certainty)
• Reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (moderate certainty)
• Increases the risk of breast and colorectal cancer (but can’t decide about others)

My summary: OK, moderate drinking increases breast and colorectal cancer, but reduces risks for heart disease and overall mortality—a net benefit (unless you happen to get one of those cancers).

II.  The Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, says in his Advisory on Alcohol and Cancer Risk

• Consuming alcohol increases the risk of developing at least 7 types of cancer.
• The causal relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer is firmly established.

My summary: Oops.  Alcohol absolutely increases the risk of at least 7 cancer types.

III.  The report from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).  

• Males and females who consumed 1 drink per day had an increased risk of liver cirrhosis, esophageal cancer, oral cancer, and injuries, but a lower risk for ischemic stroke…females had a higher risk for liver cancer and a lower risk for diabetes mellitus when they drank 1 drink per day…even infrequent high per-occasion drinking may eliminate the lower levels of risk for ischemic stroke.
• Alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus [squamous cell type]). Increased risk for these cancers begins with any alcohol use and increases with higher levels of use. Women experience a much greater risk of an alcohol-attributable cancer per drink consumed.

My summary: Oops again.  Everyone, especially women, who drink any alcohol at all is at higher risk of 7 cancer types.

As reported in Vox and Stat, HHS is withdrawing this report and sending it to report heaven, as if it never existed.

Reuters says the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines will not mention alcohol.

For the background on all of this, see my previous reports:

• The alcohol saga continues
• Alcohol in the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines: the rumors  (this one has a table of previous alcohol recommendations)

Fred Kirschnmann died over the weekend after a long illness, a great loss.

He described himself as a farmer-philosopher, and so he was.

I first met him in the early 2000s when I went to Iowa State to give a lecture.  The Dean of Agriculture, Cathy Wokeki, said I had to meet him.  He was then directing the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State, which promoted organic, sustainable, regenerative farming methods right smack in the epicenter of U.S. industrial agriculture.  When the Center—an explicit critic of industrial methods—was unsurprisingly defunded, Fred became a Distinguished Fellow of the Center.

I got to know him better when we both served on the Pew Commission for Industrial Farm Animal Production from 2006-2009, where I got to witness his honesty, integrity, thoughtfulness, and humanity in action.

He wrote eloquently about his beliefs about the importance of sustainable faming in Cultivating an Ecological Conscience: Essays from a Farmer Philosopher, published in 2010.  My blurb for the book  pointed out that he’s “right up there with the other agronomic philosophers–-Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson…It should inspire everyone to start planting and to think deeply about the food we eat.”

Since then, I witnessed his leadership and got to see him occasionally at Stone Barns.  Over the last months, I followed his slow and painful decline through the postings of his daughter Annie, and wife Carolyn Raffensperger, on Caring Bridge.

I was touched last week when Carolyn played an interview I had given on PBS News for him to listen to [The interview was about the MAHA Strategy report].

He was an inspiration to all of us who care deeply about how we farm and what we eat.

Sometime during this year, Angie Tagtow and Carolyn collected tributes from Fred’s colleagues and friends.  I am honored to be included among so many esteemed colleagues in this Festschrift volume.

I will miss him.

Reports about one or another aspect of food systems are issued constantly and are hard to keep up with.  Here are links to two major sources.

I.  The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.

This group produces impressive food-system reports at regular intervals.

Its most recent is Fuel to Fork: What will it take to get fossil fuels out of our food systems?

Our food system is hooked on fossil fuels. From fossil-fuelled fertilizers and pesticides to plastic packaging, ultra-processed foods, and long-haul cold chains, fossil fuels are entwined at every link in the food chain. Food systems now consume 40% of all petrochemicals and 15% of fossil fuels globally – making them a key growth frontier for Big Oil. Yet food remains glaringly absent from the climate conversation…This report sets out what it will take to break that addiction – and why it must start now.

II.  FAO Committee on World Food Security, High Level Panel of Experts  

This group produces reports aimed at faciliating policy debates and policy making.  Its most recent is Building Resilient Food Systems (September 2025)

This report addresses the urgent need to enhance food system resilience amidst escalating environmental, political and economic challenges. It provides focused and action-oriented policy recommendations to build resilient food systems capable of withstanding shocks and stresses…The report highlights the need to shift…to approaches aimed at “bouncing forward” by means of transformative changes that address structural and systemic vulnerabilities…In sum, the report calls for immediate and sustained action to build food system resilience and ensure the right to food for all and the well-being of the planet for future generations.

The Consumer Brands Association (formerly the Grocery Manufacturers Association) did a survey to prove that its icons on the front of cereal boxes and some other products are trusted by consumers: Facts up Front label earns high marks for trust in new survey

Why wouldn’t they be trusted?  They merely repeat what’s on the Nutrition Facts label.

But here’ what they say:

A new study released by the Consumer Brands Association (CBA) finds overwhelming consumer recognition and trust in the Facts up Front (FUF) label, reinforcing the role of front-of-pack nutrition labeling in helping Americans make informed food and beverage choices.

The nationally representative survey, conducted in May 2025 by independent research firm Savanta, shows that 90% of U.S. adults recognize the FUF label, with nearly 8 in 10 (79%) checking it before purchasing new products. Additionally, 75% of adults reported trusting the nutrition information it provides.

I find this really hard to believe.  I don’t think anyone pays any attention to these things.

Here’s what they are talking about.

I see them on cereal boxes, but not much else.

For the first four items, they say exactly what the Nutrition Facts label says.  They are also allowed to include “two nutrients to encourage.”  These can include dietary fiber, protein, vitamin D, calcium, iron, potassium, vitamin A and vitamin C.

Why would the Consumer Brands Association do this survey?

I’m guessing because the Association, which represents makers of ultra-processed foods, greatly prefers Facts Up Front to the FDA’s proposed “Healthy” label or its proposed front-of-package label or—heaven forbid—the kinds of warning labels that appear on packages in several Latin American countries.

Warning labels

• Can be understood by children
• Can be understood by people who can’t read
• Demontrably reduce purchases of labeled foods

None of these is true of Facts Up Front.

Hence the survey.

Yesterday, USDA and HHS released the official version of the leaked draft:  Make Our Children Healthy AgainStrategy 

It’s pretty much the same as the one I saw previously and posted about.

A bunch of reporters sent me copies of the draft for comment.  I wrote up some general comments:

Comments on MAHA Strategy Report

First impression:  Wait!  I’ve seen this before.  Make Our Children Healthy Again?  Isn’t that exactly what Michelle Obama was trying to do in 2010 with a Task Force Report, greeted by outrage and disdain for nanny-statism.  So here’s the RFK Jr version of the nanny state.

The report has a lot of ideas for actions that really could improve health, but is short on specifics and weak on regulatory action.  It has not changed much from the leaked version.  Its overriding message is still “more research needed.”   It does not say nearly enough about what needs to be done to improve the diets of America’s children.

On reducing intake of ultra-processed foods, it says it will try to develop a definition as a basis for future research and policy—a distant goal.

On school food, it says it will improve farm-to-school grants without noting the contradiction: this was one of the first programs eliminated by the Trump administration.

It gives a big win to the dairy industry: allows whole milk, eliminates low-fat requirements.

It does promote increased awareness of physical activity in schools but nothing about how schools are to pay for healthier meals or get more time.

It dropped any mention of reducing sugar and salt in processed foods.

What’s still missing is regulation.  So much of this is voluntary, work with, promote, partner.

The big issue for me is what are they going to do about food marketing to children?  They will “explore” “potential” guidelines for industry.  Really?  That’s all?

This is such an opportunity.  I sure wish they had taken it.

MAHA has so much bipartisan support.   This was the time to regulate food marketing to kids—not “explore,” get ultra-processed foods out of schools, and promote farm-to-school programs and school gardens—all shown to improve kids’ dietary intake.  Where’s the policy?

The bottom line: Where’s the action?

Press coverage

• Press release:  MAHA Commission Unveils Sweeping Strategy to Make Our Children Healthy Again
• Video of the press conference
• The Hagstrom Report interviewed lots of groups on reactions. Farm Action reprinted them.  The Ag industry is enthusiastic; others not so much.
• Food Fix: also has lots of comments from various groups
• Scientific American (I’m quoted)
• The New Lede (I’m quoted)
• Reuters (I’m quoted)
• Ag Funder News (I’m quoted)
• ABC News (I’m quoted)
• PBS News interview transcript  The video on X
• Time Magazine (I’m quoted)
• CSPI

I know I’ve been posting this graph multiple times, but to me it sums up everything that’s wrong with the U.S. agricultural system.  Close to half the biofuels grown in the U.S. is used to make biofuels.

Here’s what happens to corn.

But that’s not all.  Roughly 40% of U.S. soybeans are converted to diesel fuel, according to a report from the World Resources Institute: Increased Biofuel Production in the US Midwest May Harm Farmers and the Climate.  

As the report explains,

• Corn and soybeans are grown on 178 million acres of farmland.
• They grown mainly in Midwest states — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
• 30 million acres of corn are used to produce ethanol, but ethanol from corn only supplied 4% of U.S. transportation fuel in 2022.
• More than 40% of U.S. soybean oil supply has been used for biofuels since 2022; biodiesel made from soybeans supplied less than 1% of U.S. transportation fuel.

The rest is mainly used for animal feed.

All this means that the current subsidy system:

• Encourages large agricultural producers to grow corn in places where it should not be grown (areas of low water, for example).
• Takes up farmland that could be used to produce food for people.
• Pollutes the environment with pesticides and herbicides, making local water sources undrinkable.
• Promotes meat in the diet (it reduces the price of feed)

This is a really bad system that does nothing to help Make America Healthy Again.

Is the system likely to change?  Not a chance.

And now we have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

It is applauded by the trade association for ethanol and diesel producers.

The American Prospect, however, calls it “climate-wrecking.”

the Renewable Fuels Standard, created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005….was to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions by requiring the use of various biofuels for transportation and heating (and, not coincidentally, hand out gobs of cash to farm states like Iowa, a place which is kind of critical in presidential elections). Since these are created from plants that pull carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than digging up oil from the ground, it was thought this would cut emissions. [But] mainly it led to an explosion of farming corn and soybeans to be rendered into ethanol, which increased by about 500 percent between 2005 and today.

Take a look at who is made happy by this bill.

• American Soybean Association
• National Association of Wheat Growers (they want in)
• National Cattlemens Beef Association

Big Ag wants to sell crops; it doesn’t care how they are used.

Add this to everything else that’s wrong with this bill.

Fortunately, there is at least one dissenting voice:

Meanwhile, House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (MN-02) shared her negative sentiment towards the bill saying in a statement that “Today marks a grave turning point for our country, one which leaves rural communities and farmers behind, and places us on the road toward increased hunger, less prosperity and fewer opportunities for working families. This bill takes food away from millions of children, seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. Congressional Republicans have sold out ordinary Americans to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-rich and large corporations. The Republican budget is a disgrace, and every single person who voted for it should be ashamed.”

Beef Checkoffs are USDA-sponsored programs that require producers to pay fees per cattle weight (the checkoff) into a common fund for research and promotion.  Here are three examples of the kinds of studies on beef and health that checkoff money pays for.  Note that all produce results favoring eating beef (what a coincidence).

I.  Eating beef protects against heart disease, cancer, and overall mortality

Ellen Fried sent me this headline from the New York Post: Eating meat not linked to higher risk of death — and may even protect against cancer-related mortality: study

Eating more meat could be beneficial for the body, a new study suggests [the study is here].

Recent research from Canada’s McMaster University revealed that animal-sourced foods are not linked to a higher risk of death.

The study discovered that animal proteins could also offer protective benefits against cancer-related mortality, according to a press release from the university.

If you scroll down far enough, the Post account, to its credit, ends with:

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), although the researchers noted that NCBA was “not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.”

II.  Beef has no effect on weight gain, obesity, or related metabolic conditions.

Effect of unprocessed red meat on obesity and related factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Md Akheruzzaman, Marleigh Hefner, Daniel Baller, Shane Clark, Zahra Feizy, Diana M. Thomas, Nikhil V. Dhurandhar.  Obesity.  2025. 25 July 2025.  https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.24322

Results: We found no significant effect of URM [unprcessed red meat] for BMI, body weight, or percent body fat based on unfiltered pooled effect sizes. Filtered pooled effect size analysis showed a slight adverse effect of URM for total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Conclusions: Studies did not show an effect of URM on weight gain, obesity, or related metabolic conditions.

Funding: This study received funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Beef Checkoff.

Conflict of interest: [The lead author] received grant support from the Beef Checkoff for conducting the systematic review and meta-analysis. The sponsor did not have any role regarding the study design, data extraction, analysis, or reporting.

III.  Vitamins and race are more important for health than beef intake.

“Shaking the ladder” reveals how analytic choices can influence associations in nutrition epidemiology: beef intake and coronary heart disease as a case study  Vorland, C. J., O’Connor, L. E., Henschel, B., Huo, C., Shikany, J. M., Serrano, C. A., … Brown, A. WCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2025:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2525459

We explored the impact of analytical decisions on conclusions in nutrition epidemiology using self-reported beef intake and incident coronary heart disease as a case study….The finding of few statistically significant models does not prove, but may suggest, minimal association between beef and CHD. A qualitative inspection of our figures suggested that two variables had the greatest influence on results: years of multivitamin use and race…Not adjusting for these particular covariates, which indirectly capture concepts related to health consciousness and SES, may produce more extreme results because of confounding.

Funding: Funded by the Beef Checkoff….

Disclosure statement: In the 36 months prior to the initial submission, Dr. Vorland has received honoraria from The Obesity Society and The Alliance for Potato Research and Education. In the 36 months prior to the initial submission, Dr. Allison has received personal payments or promises for same from: Amin Talati Wasserman for KSF Acquisition Corp (Glanbia); Clark Hill PLC; General Mills; Kaleido Biosciences; Law Offices of Ronald Marron; Medpace/Gelesis; Novo Nordisk Fonden; Sports Research Corp.; USDA; and Zero Longevity Science (as stock options). Donations to a foundation have been made on his behalf by the Northarvest Bean Growers Association. The institution of Dr. Vorland, Ms. Henschel, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Dickinson, and Dr. Allison, Indiana University, and the Indiana University Foundation have received funds or donations to support their research or educational activities from: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; Alliance for Potato Research and Education; American Egg Board; Arnold Ventures; Eli Lilly and Company; Mars, Inc.; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Pfizer, Inc.; National Pork Board; USDA; Soleno Therapeutics; WW (formerly Weight Watchers); and numerous other for-profit and nonprofit organizations to support the work of the School of Public Health and the university more broadly. Dr. O’Connor’s research is funded by internal funds at the Agricultural Research Service, USDA and the National Cancer Institute, NIH as well as external funds from the National Institute of Agricultural, USDA and the Beef Checkoff. Dr. O’Connor also served unpaid on the National Pork Board – Real Pork Research Advisory 2nd Advisory Council. In the past 36 months, Dr. Brown has received travel expenses from Alliance for Potato Research and Education, International Food Information Council, and Soy Nutrition Institute Global; speaking honoraria from Alliance for Potato Research and Education, Calorie Control Council, Eastern North American Region of the International Biometric Society, International Food Information Council Foundation, Potatoes USA, Purchaser Business Group on Health, The Obesity Society, and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; consulting payments from National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and Soy Nutrition Institute Global; and grants through his institution from Alliance for Potato Research & Education, American Egg Board, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, NIH/NHLBI, NIH/NIDDK, NIH/NIGMS, and NSF/NIH. He has been involved in research for which his institution or colleagues have received grants or contracts from ACRI, Alliance for Potato Research & Education, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Hass Avocado Board, Indiana CTSI, NIH/NCATS, NIH/NCI, NIH/NIA, NIH/NIGMS, NIH/NLM, and UAMS. His wife is employed by Reckitt. Other authors report no disclosures in the last 36 months prior to the initial submission.

Never mind the effects of anti-obesity drugs on the health and well-being of people taking them.  From the food industry’s standpoint, what counts is what they are doing to sales of food and drink.  Ouch.

Here is my most recent collection of items from industry newsletters.  These make it clear that GLP-1 drugs are a real threat to food industry profits.

• The snackdown: Are GLP-1s really killing snacks or is it just all hype?  Weight-loss drugs are billed as a $150bn threat to bakery and snacks, but so far the impact looks more hype than reality…. Read more
• Food industry scrambles to respond to GLP-1 craze:  The drugs have already been predicted to change the way we eat… Read more
• How food brands can stay ahead of GLP-1 craze:  Don’t underestimate the GLP-1 trend. It’s going to hit, hard… Read more
• Sweet speculation: GLP-1s could already be nibbling at confectionery sales.  As enthusiasm for the confectionary sector declines, could weight-loss drugs have a role to play?… Read more
• How is GLP-1 changing eating habits in Europe?  As GLP-1s begin to make themselves known on the continent, consumers’ habits are starting to change… Read more

As to what food companies are trying to do to respond:

• GLP-1 is changing taste: How can food makers reignite flavour?  When GLP-1 drugs make food taste dull, exciting taste buds will be the aim of the game… Read more
• What makes a GLP-1-friendly yogurt drink? Danone tells all: By formulating a dairy drink that specifically caters for weight loss medication users, Danone has set a new standard with Oikos Fusion… Read more
• 4 natural food ingredients that boost GLP-1:  It’s not only drugs that induce the satiety-causing hormone… Read more
• Food’s answer to Ozempic? New ingredients mimic GLP-1 without the pharma price tag.  Once everyone’s had enough of injections, side effects, and the vast expense of GLP-1 drugs, it could be natural alternatives’ time to shine… Read more
• GLP-1 users are undernourished: why F&B needs to fill the gapNutrient gaps in GLP-1 diets present a challenge and an opportunity for the food industry… Read more

Fascinating, no?  I’m paying close attention to all this.