Currently browsing posts about: Uncategorized

The effects of all the proposed budget cuts, clearly aimed at cutting taxes for the rich at the expense of the poor, will be painful, but two are especially ironic given the Making America Healthy Again effort.

The first were the farm-to-school programs “in alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order ‘Ending Radical and Wasteful Government and DEI Programs and Preferencing.’” These cuts were especially stupid because the programs did not cost much but were a demonstrably a win/win.  Schools got fresh produce, and small farmers got paid.

Now we have a second tiny program to lose funding, SNAP-ED, more formally the USDA’s National Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program.

Here’s what AI says about this program (not a bad summary, actually).

SNAP-Ed stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education. It is a federally funded, public health program designed to help low-income individuals and families make healthy food choices and adopt active lifestyles within their budget. SNAP-Ed provides nutrition education and promotes healthy food choices, while also supporting physical activity.

Goal: SNAP-Ed aims to improve the likelihood that people eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will make healthy choices within a limited budget and adopt physically active lifestyles.

Evidence-Based: The program uses evidence-based nutrition education and obesity prevention strategies.

Federally Funded: It is a grant program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

State and Local Partnerships: SNAP-Ed works with state and local organizations to deliver its services.

Focus Areas: SNAP-Ed initiatives include nutrition education (Classes on healthy eating, budgeting, meal planning, basic cooking, and food safety), social marketing campaigns (Community-based campaigns to promote healthy eating and physical activity), and efforts to improve community policies and environments.

Although AI didn’t mention it, SNAP-ED works.  See: SNAP-Ed: The Transition of the Nation’s Largest Nutrition Education Program Into a Pillar of the Public Health Infrastructure

The SNAP-Ed program has demonstrated that its comprehensive approaches are primed to address public health crises along with its ongoing role of helping to eliminate nutrition-related health disparities. Despite the program’s public health focus, community-wide scope, and capacity for sector-level change, SNAP-Ed funding has been static for more than decade, even as its audience and mission have doubled. Funding for SNAP-Ed was only 0.4% of the total 2021 SNAP budget, or $5.15 annually for each of the nearly 90 million people in its audience—roughly the cost of a bag of oranges or potatoes.

The cost of this program is roughly half a billion dollars a year, not even a rounding error in the federal budget.  Cutting it does no good for anyone, undercuts the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) agenda, and is thoughtless and unnecessary.

Resources

• House Agriculture Committee — Reconciliation bill FY 2025
• Section-By-Section (See: 10011)
• One-Page Overview: Restoring Accountability & Prioritizing Work
• One-Page Summary: Renewing the American Dream: Prioritizing Work in SNAP
• SNAP Integrity and Farm Security Full Committee Markup (livestream link)

I would not think the avocado industry would need to fund research on the benefits of avocados—surely the Superbowl takes care of sales—but its trade association is very busy.

The Hass Avocado Board has its own USDA-sponsored checkoff marketing program.

It also sponsors The Avocado Nutrition Center, where you can read all about the research studies it funds.

The avocado is well-loved but little-understood.

That’s why the Avocado Nutrition Center works to grow the world’s scientific understanding of the avocado.

Misinformation will fill the void if the pace of scientific knowledge does not match the pace of the avocado’s growing popularity.

I love avocados.  But really?

Apparently so.  Here are two recent examples.

I.  The Effect of Daily Avocado Intake on Food and Nutrient Displacement in a Free-Living Population with Abdominal Obesity. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 10, 2024, 104451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104451.

Conclusion: Incorporating 1 avocado daily led to favorable modifications in the dietary composition of participants, including an increase in potassium and fiber intake, which can improve diet quality.

Sponsor: Hass Avocado Board.

II.  Avocado consumption during pregnancy linked to lower child food allergy risk: prospective KuBiCo study. Pediatr Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-03968-4.  Thanks to Charles Platkin for this one.

Conclusion: Avocado consumption during pregnancy was associated with lower odds of infant food allergies at 12 months, even when accounting for potential covariates.

Conflict of interest: Three of the authors work for the Avocado Nutrition Center, Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: These are standard examples of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the strong tendency of industry-funded studies to produce favorable outcomes.   They raise the question: Would independent researchers do one-food studies like these if they were not funded by an interested party?

My new book, The Fish Counter, comes out June 10.  I will say more about it then.  In the meantime…

My interview about it with Nutrition Action’s Bonnie Liebman. 

Which fish are healthy and sustainable? It’s complicated

Seafood is good for you. That’s no surprise. But it’s not easy to find species that don’t contain mercury, PCBs, PFAS, or other contaminants, aren’t overfished, and aren’t linked to human rights abuse…  Read more here

5 food experts making sense of MAHA’s vision for a new way of eating

Marion Nestle

Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University, molecular biologist, and the author of more than dozen books, has been a prominent voice on nutrition and advocate for food policy reform for years. But as a New York Times headline recently declared, “At age 88, she’s meeting her moment” in the MAHA-verse.

Nestle isn’t on board with all of Kennedy’s food concerns — she’s pretty neutral on seed oils, for example. But they share many criticisms of the food industry, arguing that the rise of addictively delicious, nutritionally deficient ultra-processed foods is linked to higher obesity levels in the U.S. and favoring measures like banning soda from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. (Nestle wrote the book on the soda industry’s threat to public health, 2015’s “Soda Politics.”) As such, Nestle’s commentary is a valuable guide to understanding the logic behind Kennedy’s proposals, whether or not you agree with them.

It’s actually six others: Dariush Mozaffarian (Tufts), Susan Mayne (former FDA official), Eri Schulze (UPSIDE Foods), Jerold Mande (Nourish), and Helena Bottemiller Evich (Food Fix).

I’m happy to be in their company.

I get asked all the time about what’s happening with the dietary guidelines.  I have no inside information, but am exhausted at the thought that we have to go through all this again.

By law, dietary guidelines have to be re-done every five years, even though they always say the same things: eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; eat less sugar, salt, and saturated fat; balance calories.  OK.  They take take more than 150 pages to say that, but that’s what it all boils down to.

Will they be different in the new MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) era?  I can only speculate.

To review the process:

• A scientific advisory committee reviews the research and writes a report.  This one released its report in December.
• Now, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services appoint a committee—or somebody—to write the actual guidelines.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says the two departments are working on them and they will come out “hopefully early fall.”  If they do, this will set records.  The guidelines typically are released in late December or early January.

The secretaries have promised they will not continue the tradition of “leftist ideology”  I’m not sure what tradition that is, exactly, although I suspect it means “plant-based.”

I can’t wait to see what happens with:

• Beef: USDA has always been sensitive to the demands of beef, corn, and soybean farmers.  Suggestions to eat less beef are typically phrased euphemistically (“eat lean meat”).
• Fats: RFK Jr wants seed oils replaced with beef tallow.
• Sugar: USDA has always been sensitive to the concerns of sugarbeet and sugarcane producers, historically a powerful lobby.  RFK Jr says sugar is poison.
• Ultra-processed foods:  The scientific advisory committee ducked the issue.  The MAHA folks are concerned about them.
• Emphasis on plant foods: Will the guidelines continue to promote their health benefits?
• Calories: The “C” word.  Will the guidelines bring back a discussion of calories, their principal food sources, and how their intake is affected by ultra-processed foods?
• Sustainability: The “S” word.  I would guess this one stays off the table, but you never know.

This one will be fun to watch.

The FDA is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, now headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  It is getting busy on carrying out Secretary Kennedy’s stated agenda.  It took four actions of interest last week.  Check out #3; it requires action.

I.  Approved Three Food Colors from Natural Sources

Since the HHS and FDA announcement last month during a press conference at HHS on petroleum-based food dyes, more U.S. food manufacturers have committed to removing them within the FDA’s set time frame of the end of next year.

“On April 22, I said the FDA would soon approve several new color additives and would accelerate our review of others. I’m pleased to report that promises made, have been promises kept,” said FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, M.D., M.P.H. “FDA staff have been moving quickly to expedite the publication of these decisions, underscoring our serious intent to transition away from petroleum-based dyes in the food supply and provide new colors from natural sources.”

FDA approved color additive petitions for:

• Galdieria extract blue, a blue color derived from the unicellular red algae Galdieria sulphuraria (by petition from Fermentalg).
• Butterfly pea flower extract, a blue color that can be used to achieve a range of shades including bright blues, intense purple, and natural greens (Sensient Colors LLC)
• Calcium phosphate, a white color approved for use in ready-to-eat chicken products, white candy melts, doughnut sugar, and sugar for coated candies (Innophos Inc).

II.  Announced top priorities for the Human Foods Program

FoodNavigator-USA report that Mark Hartman, who directs the new Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation, says the FDA soon will:

• Reveal how it will deal with the safety of chemicals in the food supply
• Create a new Office of Post Market Review to conduct risk reviews of chemical additives
• Increase transparency and stakeholder engagement in the review process
• Work through 70,000 comments on the FDA’s proposal for reviewing the safety of chemical additives
• Partner with the NIH to research how food additives affect children’s health
• Work with the food industry to phase out synthetic color additives
• Work through comments on sodium guidance
• Think about ways of addressing added sugars
• Identify ultra-processed foods as an “area of emerging study”

III.  Extended the comment period for front-of-package labeling until July 15

We are taking this action in response to requests to extend the comment period to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments. Comments should be submitted to Regulations.gov and identified with the docket number FDA-2024-N-2910.

Recall: This is what the Biden FDA proposed.  Here’s what I said about it (basically, we need something better).

Here’s a real opportunity.  If you want a front-of-package warning label like those in Latin America, here’s your chance to weigh in.

RFK Jr says he wants to Make America Healthy Again.  One way to do that is to discourage sales of food products high in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, but also discourage sales of ultra-processed foods.  Identifying foods as ultra-processed, on the basis of their chemical additives as well as their fat, sugar, and salt, would be an excellent step forward.

If you like the warning labels used in Latin American countries, send a note to the FDA Docket.  You have until July 15 to do that.

IV.  Announced a joint research initiative with NIH to address, among other unspecified questions,

• 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?

Comment

OK.  This represents action or proposed action.  My question: What will the FDA actually do?  I’m particularly interested in the joint NIH research initiative on ultra-processed foods.  Will NIH reverse its stance on Kevin Hall, whose research aimed to answer precisely that question?  I will be watching all this with much curiosity.

I often get asked why I think industry funding biases research in ways that almost always ensure that results favor the sponsor’s interests.

A reader, Professor Michael Tlusty, sent me this excellent example (my emphasis in bold).

BEEF CHECKOFF 2026 HUMAN NUTRITION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOW OPEN

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease.As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a pre-proposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project….

Comment: If you want your project funded, you need to make sure it will demonstrate beef’s role in nourishing and optimizing health.  If your project does not do this, it won’t get funded.

OK.  Here’s your chance.  Pre-proposals are due May 30 at 11:59 pm MT.  Directions: Submit a Pre-Proposal

The President’s proposed budget cuts are worth a close look.

In addition to what I’ve posted this week, I have a few comments about it.

Most of the government’s budget cannot be cut; it is mandatory.

Mandatory expenditures include defense, interest payments, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and, yes, SNAP.   These can only be cut by an act of Congress.

The cuttable discretionary programs are the ones aimed at helping everyone, but especially the poor and vulnerable (they grey parts in this chart). 

The rhetoric—anti-woke, anti-Biden, anti-science—reminds me of the McCarthy era anti-Communist rhetoric.

Anything that Biden did is bad.  Anything aimed to help minorities or women is bad.  Anything that promotes research or tries to mitigate climate change is bad.

Is the Trump Administration engaging in “soft” eugenics, as The Guardian puts it?

By avoiding discussion of education, employment, social support networks, economic status and geographic location – the social determinants that public health experts agree influence health outcomes – Kennedy, in lockstep with top wellness influencers, is practicing soft eugenics…At the heart of all these policies is soft eugenics thinking – the idea that if you take away life-saving healthcare and services from the vulnerable, then you can let nature take its course and only the strong will survive….Maha perfectly mimics Maga’s deregulatory ethos: cut social services for vulnerable populations while parroting populist language that further helps consolidate power for the most well-off.

Food for thought, as we say.

Resource

Civil Eats on the effects of Trump’s first 100 days on the food system