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)

Fred Kirschenmann 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.

His official obituary is here.  It explains his background and the source of his ethics and inspiration.

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