Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall.  Food Intelligence: The Science of how Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us.  Avery, 2025. ~340 pages

This is the long-awaited manifesto from the journalist Julia Belluz and scientist Kevin Hall.

As the press release puts it,  the book

digs deep into the fundamental, often overlooked, and always enthralling science of nutrition (the chemicals and energy we get from food) and metabolism (how our bodies use food)—covering what we know and the history of how we came to know it, up to the frontiers of research into the invisible forces that really shape our eating habits. The result is a sprawling tour of centuries of science into the wonders of food and the marvelous ways our bodies use it, for better and worse health.

As you can see, I wrote a blurb for the book (they edited it slightly).

If you want to understand how nutrition became so contentious and why we are still arguing about whether it’s better to eat more or less fat, carbohydrate, protein, or vitamins, you must read Food Intelligence. Well written, historically accurate, and scientifically rigorous, this book brings you up to the moment on contemporary dietary issues. 

Here are two excerpts, the first from a discussion of one of Kevin Hall’s studies comparing high fat to high carbohydrate diets:

[Kevin] predicted that the body would select fuels for metabolism in a way that caused body fat loss to vary only a little, regardless of the proportion of carbs or fat a person was eating.  Cutting carbs from a balanced diet caused the body to shift toward burning fewer carbs and more fat after several days.  But surprisingly, reducing dietary fat by the same number of calories didn’t seem to change the mixture of carbohydrate and fat the body burned.  The net result was that both diets led to similar body fat losses, but with a slight difference that contradicted the popular claims of low-carb acolytes like Atkins.  The reduced-fat diet, Kevin’s model predicted, led to a little more body fat loss compared to the reduced-carb diet.

Maybe a calorie wasn’t exactly a calorie, Kevin told his audience.  But the difference was in the opposite direction from the one claimed by the low-carb diet camp. P. 70

And here is one about why it’s useful to eat a variety of foods:

Food combinations matter—a complexity we’re only beginning to unravel.  Pairing foods rich in plant-based iron with foods rich in vitamin C increases the body’s ability to absorb the iron, while drinking alcohol with a meal hampers nutrient absorption.  Too many glasses of wine, and the ability to absorb vitamins and minerals, such as thiamine, vitamin B12, folate, and zinc, drops off.  pp 221-222

So many readers have sent me notices about California’s Senate having unanimously passed a bill banning ultra-processed foods from schools—and defining what they are—that I just have to write about it.

The bill is here.  The legislative analysis is here.

Two things about this bill are noteworthy.

I.  The bill defines ultra-processed foods. 

An ultra-processed food:

Contains one or more of the following

• Surface-active agents
• Stabilizers and thickeners
• Propellents, aerating agents and gases
• Colors and coloring adjuncts
• Emulsifiers and emulsifier salts
• Flavoring agents and adjuvants
• Non-nutritive sweeteners [D-sorbitol, erythritol, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates, sucralose, isomal, lactitol, luo han fruit concentrate, maltitol, steviol glycosides, thaumatin, xylitol)

And contains one or more of:

• Saturated fat at 10% or more of calories
• A ratio of mg sodium to calories of more than 1:1
• Sugars at 10% or more of calories

II.  The bill summarizes existing California laws related to school food.  These:

• Ban foods containing brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, red dye no. 3.
• Provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students.
• Restrict foods sold outside the schools meals to those that are reasonably healthy.
• Limit fat, saturated fat, sugar, sodium, and calories in competitive foods.
• Restrict competitive beverages to drinks to those that are reasonably healthy
• Prohibit several synthetic color additives.

Comment: The bill has yet to be signed by the governor.  I hope he does.

Press accounts

• Yahoo News
• The Guardian (I’m quoted)
• Politico
• Eat Real

According to the Wall Street Journal (sent to me by Lindsey Smith Taillie, who is quoted in the story), the USDA will no longer be collecting data on food insecurity after this year.

“This nonstatutory report became overly politicized and upon subsequent review, was unnecessary to carry out the work of the Department,” USDA spokesman Alec Varsamis said.

He added that the 2024 report will be released on Oct. 22, but the 2025 report has been discontinued.

I then received USDA’s official notice.

Costly and politicized, yes.  But redundant and fear-mongering?  Hardly.

It’s easy to understand this kind of rhetoric.

The last report, Household Food Security in the United States in 2023, published this extremely inconvenient finding.

It’s pretty hard to justify cutting food assistance funding when food insecurity is rising to levels like those in the 2008 recession.

Cuts and changes to SNAP are leaving a lot up to states, which will have a hard time with it.

If you live in an Orwellian universe, you can use not measuring to pretend that food insecurity does not exist and certainly that it is not increasing as a result of your policies.

It took a long time for the anti-hunger community to achieve federal documentation of this enormous social problem.  I suppose we will now have to go back to the old days of local anti-hunger reports.  See my comments (with Sally Guttmacher) on state hunger reports.

Truly, we are living in Orwellian times.  May we find our way out of them soon.

It breaks my heart to learn of the death of the great cookbook author and food politics writer, Marian Burros.

She was immensely important to me and to my work.

Marion Nestle and Marian Burros at NYU, 2018

Her obituary in the New York Times appeared on Saturday; I was interviewed for it some years ago and am quoted:

Marian was hugely ahead of her time in writing about the importance of food choices that not only improve health but also are sustainable and protect the environment…She was writing about the politics of food long before anyone dreamed that a food movement might exist.”

So true.  I first met her in the late 1980s when I was in DC working for Health and Human Services as managing editor of the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health.  Marian was writing for the Washington Post and interviewed me about the report a couple of times.  Soon after, she moved to the New York Times and I moved to NYU.

In 1991, when the USDA withdrew the long-researched, about-to-be-published Eating Right Pyramid, ostensibly because it had not been tested on low-income women and children, I was contacted by a USDA staff person with documents proving that the real reason was pressure from meat producers who did not like the position of meat at the top of the pyramid.  As I tell in detail in my book, Food Politics, a USDA Deep Throat asked if I could get those documents to the press.

I called Marian Burros and asked if she’d be interested.  She was.

Her first of many articles on the pyramid scandal: Are cattlemen now guarding the henhouse? (it quotes me).

She worked on that story for a year, eventually digging out enough leaked information that she could piece together what the USDA was going to do—a bowl!

Her article so embarrassed the USDA that it had to admit the pyramid was a better option, and finally issued it.

In 1996, my NYU Department created undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs in Food Studies.  Clark Wolf, a food consultant who was advising us, told Marian Burros about the programs.

As soon as we had New York State approval for the programs, she wrote about them: A New View on Training Food Experts,

We had prospective students in our office that very afternoon, holding copies of the clipping, and saying they’d waited all their lives for this program.  Thanks to that publicity, even though this was mid-summer, we had a full class that fall.

And here we all were, celebrating the Department’s new teaching kitchen.

Three Marions—Nestle, Cunningham, and Burros (with an a)—and Clark Wolf at NYU’s newly renovated teaching kitchen in 1996.

She was one tough reporter.  She asked hard questions and insisted on answers.  She knew the food politics scene better than anyone.

I was sorry when she retired from the Times.  It seemed like a great loss.

It is a great loss.

Corporate Climate Resposibility Monitor has published its 2025 report: Food and Agriculture Sector Deep Dive, which looks at measures of protection against climate change.  It doesn’t find much.

It does find:

• Agrifood companies present measures that are unlikely to lead to structural, deep emission reductions in the sector.
• Agrifood companies’ emission reduction targets are currently undermined by the undefined role for land-based carbon removals.
• Standard setters need to anchor the need for deep and structural emission reductions in their voluntary standards and guidelines, guided by key transitions for the sector, and need to call for separate targets for emission reduction and removal.

Overall,

Not much green in this chart.

The report goes into detail for each of the companies it’s tracking.

Not much good news here.  No surprise.  Reducing and cleaning up emissions costs money.

I learned about this report from Ag Funder News: Danone and Nestlé hit back after new report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate greenwashing.’

According to the report, penned by nonprofits NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch, “This focus on CDR [carbon dioxide removal] distracts from their lack of commitments to deep, structural emission reductions, especially regarding methane.

“While the draft GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance recommends setting separate targets for emissions reductions and removals, the current SBTi FLAG guidance appears to allow companies to count removals toward their reduction targets. Danone, Nestlé and PepsiCo seem to be taking this approach.”

It adds: “Companies are exploiting loopholes in voluntary standards like SBTi FLAG and the GHG Protocol, which allow them to blend removals with reductions in a single figure, masking a lack of real mitigation.”

Protein is very much on the food agenda these days despite evidence that hardly anyone needs more of it than they are already getting.  This has led to at least two trends.

I.  Nutritional hilarity. 

Here’s my current favorite example (you can’t make this stuff up).

II.  Eat more meat!

The Institute for Food Technology says Hunger for Protein Fuels Meat Mania.

Meat and poultry purchases and consumption have reached an all-time high thanks to a dramatic drop in those trying to avoid meat (from 37% in 2022 to 22% in 2025) coupled with consumers’ ongoing interest in adding protein to their diets, according to new research from FMI, The Food Industry Association. Datassential reports that protein is now the most sought-after healthy descriptor on restaurant menus.

The protein craze raises a couple of important questions.  The meat industry wants you to eat more meat.  Should you?

I.   Do protein requirements need to be increased?

A review of protein requirements says 

Across populations, the findings reported for protein and indispensable amino acid requirements in our review both reflect and depart from the current DRIs. Additionally, studies in our review reported higher protein requirements for children and pregnant individuals than current DRIs…Notably, we found sparse literature on indispensable amino acid requirements across populations; therefore, consistency of these findings is unknown.

The answer: probably not.  Most people are already consuming twice recommended amounts.

II. Is eating too much protein harmful?

A review of the literature—The harms of high protein intake: conjectured, postulated, claimed, and presumed, but shown?—finds no harm from eating excessive amounts of protein.

Results from some observational studies have shown associations of high(er) protein intakes with a variety of negative health outcomes. However, we know of no compelling evidence that, in otherwise healthy humans, there is an upper level of protein intake where the conjectured harms of HP intake have been demonstrated.

The USDA issued an announcement last week: Secretary Rollins Announces Reinvigorated Farm to School Grants Supporting American Farmers and Children.   And here’s her video announcement.

I love the way the USDA uses Orwellian language (meaning the opposite of what it says).

New this year, USDA reimagined the Farm to School Grant program, implementing several improvements, including streamlining the application, removing barriers to innovation, and emphasizing partnerships to give small family farms the best chance at success.

“Yesterday at the MAHA Report announcement, alongside Secretary Kennedy, we announced one of the key actions USDA has already taken to contribute to making our children healthy again – Farm to School Grants. These initiatives are one of the best ways we can deliver nutritious, high-quality meals to children, while also strengthening local agriculture,” said Secretary Brooke Rollins. “These grants will open new doors for small family farms, expand access to healthy food in schools, and inspire the next generation of Great American Farmers. Under President Trump’s leadership, USDA is proud to streamline this program, so it works better for families, farmers, and communities across our nation. Putting America’s Farmers First starts with putting our children first.”

Yes, but.

Somehow, Secretary Rollins failed to mention that the Trump Administration cancelled the $1.13 billion farm-to-school program announced last December.

It’s great that USDA is bringing back this program, a win-win for farmers and schools.

But “up to $18 million” falls far short–16%—of what was meant to be invested in such programs, but cancelled.

Reinvigorated?  Maybe.

Hence Orwellian.

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)