Currently browsing posts about: Uncategorized

The UNICEF report: Feeding Profit: How food environments are failing children.

The UNICEF press release: Obesity exceeds underweight for the first time among school-age children and adolescents globally – UNICEF: One in 10 children worldwide living with obesity. Exposure to the marketing of ultra-processed foods found to be widespread.

the prevalence of underweight among children aged 5-19 has declined since 2000, from nearly 13 per cent to 9.2 per cent, while obesity rates have increased from 3 per cent to 9.4 per cent. Obesity now exceeds underweight in all regions of the world, except sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia….According to the latest available data, 1 in 5 children and adolescents aged 5-19 globally – or 391 million – are overweight, with a large proportion of them now classified as living with obesity.

One of the report’s major findings: “Globally, obesity has overtaken underweight as the more dominant form of malnutrition among school-age children and adolescents.”

Why?

• Ultraprocessed foods aimed at children
• Marketing of such foods to children
• Unethical practices of companies making ultraprocessed foods
• Inadquate legal measures and policies to stop such marketing

What to do?  Basically, oppose the practices, and institute measures and policies.

The report is beautifully documented and lays out the issues clearly and forcefully.  It’s well worth reading.  And taking action!

The National Food Museum, is a project of Michael Jacobson, former founder and director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (I’m on its Advisory Council).  It is currently still virtual, but provides all kinds of resources, short videos among them.

The Museum organizes them into several categories.  I took a look at the category of “kids (and others).”  Three examples, from among many:

• “We like Peanut Butter,” silly song with Dr. Jean
• Cookie Monster
• Giuseppe Arcimboldo for kids!

This is a large collection of such things.  Enjoy!

The FDA is starting the regulatory process to close the GRAS Loophole.

This proposed rule, if finalized, would amend the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) regulations in 21 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] parts 170 and 570 to require the mandatory submission of GRAS notices for the use of human and animal food substances that are purported to be GRAS.

What?  You mean manufacturers are not already required to tell the FDA when they are putting new additives into foods?

No, they are not.  Hence, the “GRAS Loophole.”  Food manufacturers have been allowed to decide for themselves whether a new additive is safe and also to decide whether to inform the FDA about it.

Closing the loophole is a long-standing goal of food advocates.  Even I got into this one.

In 2013, I wrote a short editorial about the history and significance of GRAS determinations: Nestle M. Conflict of interest in the regulation of food safety: a threat to scientific integrity. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2013;173(22):2036-8. 

Here’s the FDA’s version of this history.

And Food Dive explains: FDA takes first step toward closing GRAS ingredient ‘loophole’

Dive Brief:

• The FDA proposed a rule that companies provide health data and other documentation when declaring a new food ingredient or additive is safe, a step toward eliminating a voluntary approval process decried by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
• The rule would require companies to submit mandatory notices when declaring an ingredient is Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS. Currently, notices are voluntary, though strongly encouraged by the FDA.
• The proposal is included among a list of upcoming regulatory priorities by the Trump administration. In March, Kennedy directed the FDA to explore rulemaking to eliminate companies’ ability to self-affirm that an ingredient is safe.

If the FDA can pull this off, it will indeed be a MAHA Win.

I hope it can, given how many FDA employees are no longer with the agency (~3,500 according to reports).

The EAT-Lancet Commission has released its updated report on “healthy, sustainable, and just food systems.”

Let me point out immediately that the report was written by a great many authors (I could not easily count them), is 76 pages long, and is pretty much impenetrable without a lot of hard work.

As it did in its first report in 2019, the Commission’s report defines a Planetary Health Diet (PHD), which

represents a dietary pattern that supports optimal health outcomes and can be applied globally for different populations and different contexts, while also supporting cultural and regional variation…The PHD is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria….[It] emphasises a balanced dietary pattern that is predominantly plant-based, with moderate inclusion of animal-sourced foods and minimal consumption of added sugars, saturated fats, and salt.

The report offers “eight solutions and 23 actions to enable food systems transformation, which can be organised into coherent bundles of interventions that simultaneously advance health, environmental, and justice goals.”

the exercise of corporate power in ways that undermine public interests. The high degree of corporate concentration across food systems remains an intractable governance issue, which is partly due to the vast influence of large transnational food and beverage companies with considerable power.

Vox was kind enough to produce this explanatory chart.CNN quotes author Walter Willett:

“A diet good for both people and the planet focuses on fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and whole grains — a moderate amount of meat and dairy — and very little added sugar, saturated fat and salt…When it comes to meat and dairy, think one plus one, Willett said — one daily serving of dairy, such as milk or yogurt, along with one daily serving of an animal protein such as fish, poultry, eggs or meat. Red meat (beef, lamb and pork) should be limited to a 4-ounce serving only once a week, however, due to its impact on overall health.

The Guardian: ‘Planetary health diet’ could save 40,000 deaths a day, landmark report finds

The diet – which allows moderate meat consumption – and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water.

AP News:

About 15 million deaths could be avoided each year and agricultural emissions could drop by 15% if people worldwide shift to healthier, predominantly plant-based diets, according to the EAT-Lancet Commission, which brought together scientists worldwide to review the latest data on food’s role in human health, climate change, biodiversity and people’s working and living conditions.

Comment: The recommended diet for health—and also the planet and food justice—is extremely low in meat by U.S. standards.  It also directly opposes the MAHA movement’s emphasis on meat, beef tallow, and full-fat dairy, and its disapproval of seed oils and plant-based diets (these, according to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS, reflect “left-wing ideology”).

I learned about this one from Women’s Health: New Study Confirms What We’ve Known About Eggs’ Health Impacts All Along.   Translation: Saturated fat raises blood cholesterol levels more than does dietary cholesterol.  Guess who paid for it!

The study: Impact of dietary cholesterol from eggs and saturated fat on LDL cholesterol levels: a randomized cross-over study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Volume 122, Issue 1, July 2025, Pages 83-91  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.05.001.

The World Health Organization’s declaration on prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCDs—heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc) was in the news this week (its source is here).

First, because of what it says and does not say:

These things are miserable to read.  You have to start with the “recognizes.” Here are two:

Recognize also that the main modifiable risk factors of noncommunicable diseases are tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity and air pollution and are largely preventable and require cross-sectoral actions;

Recognize also that obesity is driven by multiple factors, including the unaffordability and unavailability of healthy diets, lack of physical activity, sleep deprivation, and stress;

But after all that, the declaration merely suggests [my comments]:

(i) promoting increased availability and affordability of nutritious food and information on healthy eating including through promoting efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems [how?]

(ii) improving policies and taking measures to reduce industrially-produced trans-fatty acids to the lowest level possible and reduce excessive levels of saturated fats, free sugars and sodium [by what means?]

(iii) providing nutritional information to consumers, such as through front-of-pack labeling;

(iv) putting in place public food procurement and service policies for healthy diets;

(v) protecting children from the harmful impact of food marketing, including digital marketing [How?  By what means?]

(vi) protecting, promoting and supporting optimal breastfeeding practices, including by regulating the marketing of breastmilk substitutes [at last, regulation] and

(vii) promoting adequate physical activity, including sports and recreation, and reducing sedentary behavior, including through
increasing access to public spaces.

What’s missing here?  Policy!

• Where, for example, is soda taxation?  [The WHO says it wants soda taxes to increase by 50% as part of its 3 by 35 initiative, but the declaration mentions taxes on tobacco and alcohol, not sodas].
• Where is regulation of marketing to kids?
• Where is reduction of ultra-processed foods?
• Where are warning labels?

Whatever.  All of this could be moot.

Second, because the U.S. will not sign on to the declaration

The reasons are quite different.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, oddly since he wants to Make America Healthy Again, objected to the declaration.  He says he cannot “support W.H.O. policies that…promoted abortion and “radical gender ideology.”  This too is odd because neither is mentioned in the declaration.

He is also quoted as saying,

More specifically, we cannot accept language that pushes destructive gender ideology…Neither can we accept claims of a constitutional or international right to abortion. The WHO cannot claim credibility or leadership until it undergoes radical reform. The United States objects to the political declaration of non communicable diseases.

Again, odd because MAHA has a political agenda to end NCDs.

But I am more concerned about the failure of WHO to propose stronger measures.  Earlier drafts, apparently, contained stronger language.

Third, because conflicts of interest could be involved

What’s going on here?  Could this have something to do with it? Alarm as WHO accepts increasing amount of dark money from donors.

The WHO Foundation, according to Who funds the WHO Foundation? A transparency analysis of donation disclosures over the first 3 years of its operation, takes large donations from corporate and philanthropic groups and individuals without revealing who they are.

Oh dear.

Resources

• New York Times 
• Food Fix 

I’m indebted to a reader, Daniel Wiser, for sending me this item about how US Poultry is honoring Tyson Foods and Perdue Foods for “excellence in wastewater management.”

The US Poultry & Egg Association announces the recipients of the 2025 Clean Water Award: Tyson Foods in Danville, Va., and Perdue Foods in Lewiston, N.C. This annual award honors poultry facilities that demonstrate strong performance in wastewater treatment, water reuse and overall sustainability. Winners were selected by a committee of industry engineers and university experts and recognized at USPOULTRY’s annual Environmental Management Seminar.

He also sent links to these stories:

• PBS News: Wastewater from Tyson meat processing plants is polluting U.S. waterways, report says
• Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Investors Refile Water Pollution Resolution with Tyson Foods
• Environment America: Report: Tyson #1 water polluter among agribusinesses
• Investigate Midwest: Oklahoma’s loophole: How Tyson’s water use goes unchecked
• Department of Justice: Tyson Poultry Fined $2 Million for Violating the Clean Water Act

You can’t make these things up!

After 20 years, of being owned by Unilever, Ben & Jerry are unhappy about how that relationship is working out.  They say they are being silenced and their independence is being infringed upon.

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield, part of the duo whose names shaped the popular U.S. ice cream brand over the last half-century, has quit his role as “brand ambassador” after a rift and public feud with parent Unilever (ULVR.L), over the conflict in Gaza.

In an open letter shared by his business partner, Ben Cohen on social media, Greenfield said that the Vermont-based company – well-known for its social activism on progressive issues – had in recent years been “silenced” by Unilever, which is currently spinning off its Magnum ice cream unit that includes the Ben & Jerry’s brand.

That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever; one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company’s governance structure in perpetuity. It’s profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence – the very basis of our sale to Unilever – is gone.