Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
May 27 2025

The MAHA Commission report: some thoughts

The MAHA Commission released its report last week: The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again.  Assessment.

This is one impressive report, forcefully written and tightly documented (it cites my work, among that of many others).

Overall, it paints a devastating portrait of how our society has failed our children.

It begins by stating that “The health of American children is in crisis” due to:

  • Poor diet
  • Aggregation of environmental chemicals
  • Lack of physical activity and chronic stress
  • Overmedicalization

The result: high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer, allergies  and mental health problems among kids.

Here are some selected items I particularly appreciated in the report.  The bullet points are direct quotes.

On poor diet

  • Most American children’s diets are dominated by ultra – processed foods (UPFs ) high in added sugars , chemical additives , and saturated fats, while lacking sufficient intakes of fruits and vegetables.
  • Pesticides , microplastics , and dioxins are commonly found in the blood and urine of American children and pregnant women— some at alarming levels.
  • Children are exposed to numerous chemicals , such as heavy metals , PFAS , pesticides , and phthalates, via their diet, textiles, indoor air pollutants, and consumer products.
  • To get into schools , many food companies have reformulated their products with minor ingredient adjustments to qualify for the federal Smart Snack program by meeting the school nutrition standards, which children can purchase separate from school meals.

The driving factors for poor diets

  • Consolidation of the food system
  • Distorted nutrition research and marketing
  • Compromised dietary guidelines

On the dietary guidelines  

They maintain problematic reductionist recommendations, such as:

  • Advising people to “reduce saturated fat” or “limit sodium” instead of focusing on minimizing ultra-processed foods.
  • Treating all calories similarly, rather than distinguishing between nutrient-dense foods and ultra-processed products.
  • Remain largely agnostic to how foods are produced or processed: There is little distinction between industrially processed foods and home-cooked or whole foods if their nutrient profiles look similar.
  • Added sugars, saturated fats and sodium are treated as proxies for ultra-processed foods. For instance, a cup of whole-grain ready to eat fortified breakfast cereal and a cup of oatmeal with fruit might both count as “whole grain servings,” and the guidelines do not weigh in on differences in processing.

They also,

  • Do not explicitly address UPFs.
  • Have a history of being unduly influenced by corporate interests .

On food systems

  • The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare.
  • Traditional Field Crops vs. Specialty Crops : Historically, federal crop insurance programs have primarily covered traditional field crops like wheat , corn , and soybeans, while providing much less support for specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery plants.

On Corporate Capture 

  • Although the U.S. health system has produced remarkable breakthroughs, we must face the troubling reality that the threats to American childhood have been exacerbated by perverse incentives that have captured the regulatory bodies and federal agencies tasked with overseeing them .
  • Limited comparisons between industry-funded research versus non- industry studies have raised concerns over potential biases in industry-funded research…Additionally, some industry leaders have engaged in promoting ghostwriting and sponsored reviews to influence the scientific literature.
  • Notably, this ghostwriting strategy mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry to distort scientific consensus is largely propelled by “corporate capture,” in which industry interests dominate and distort scientific literature, legislative actions, academic institutions, regulatory agencies, medical journals, physician organizations, clinical guidelines, and the news media.
  • The pharmaceutical industry, with its vast resources and influence, is a primary driver of this capture, though similar dynamics pervade the food and chemical industries.

Research recommendations

  • GRAS Oversight Reform: Fund independent studies evaluating the health impact of self-affirmed GRAS food ingredients, prioritizing risks to children and informing transparent FDA rulemaking.
  • Nutrition Trials: NIH should fund long-term trials comparing whole-food, reduced-carb, and low-UPF diets in children to assess effects on obesity and insulin resistance.
  • Large-scale Lifestyle Interventions: Launch a coordinated national lifestyle-medicine initiative that embeds real-world randomized trials-covering integrated interventions in movement, diet, light exposure, and sleep timing-within existing cohorts and EHR networks.

Comment

The report has been criticized for not getting some of the science right.  The agriculture industry is particularly concerned about the attack on the chemicals it uses.  It is said to be outraged by the report.  The report did throw Big Ag this bone: “Today, American farmers feed the world, American companies lead the world, and American energy powers the world.”

But the report raises one Big Question:  What policies will this administration come up with to deal with these problems?  These, presumably, will be in the next report, due in about 80 days.

This is an extraordinary report, a breath of fresh air in many ways, and I would love to know who wrote it.

But to fix the problems it raises will require taking on not only Big Ag, but also Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Chemical, and other industries affected by these and its other recommendations (the report also says a lot about drugs and mental health).  Big Ag has already weighed in.  Others are sure to follow.

Oh.  And it’s hard to know how policies can be implemented, given the destructive cuts to FDA, CDC, and NIH personnel and budget.

I will be watching this one.  Stay tuned.

Resources

Additional resource

 

May 26 2025

Industry-funding analysis of the week: the meat funding effect

This is an example of what the late and much missed Sheldon Krimsky called “the funding effect,” the strong tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor.

The study: Industry study sponsorship and conflicts of interest on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of clinical trials. Miguel López-Moreno, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, Alberto Roldán-Ruiz.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.030.

The findings:  

  • Of 44 studies of meat and cardiovascular risks, 66% had links to the meat industry.
  • All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results.
  • All studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results.
  • Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to report favorable/neutral outcomes.

Conclusion: 

  • Studies funded by the meat industry “may underestimate the cardiovascular benefits of reducing red meat intake.”

Comment

This study confirms an enormous body of research on this topic: industry funding influences research outcome.  How?  Usually by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are interpreted (unfavorable results reported as neutral, for example).  I’ve seen criticisms of this study arguing that ideology (favoring plant-based diets, for example) also influences research outcome.  It does, but all investigators have belief systems that influence their work.  These can go in any direction.  That’s why research needs repeating by other investigators with other biases.  Financial ties are different; they invariably skew results in the same direction—toward the commercial interests of the sponsor.

May 23 2025

Weekend reading: worldwide food insecurity

The newly released Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) has bad news.

In 2024, more than 295 million people across 53 countries and territories experienced acute levels of hunger– an increase of 13.7 million from 2023.

Of great concern is the worsening prevalence of acute food insecurity, which now stands at 22.6 percent of the population assessed. This marks the fifth consecutive year in which this figure has remained above 20 percent…Malnutrition, particularly among children, reached extremely high levels, including in the Gaza Strip, Mali, Sudan, and Yemen. Nearly 38 million children under five were acutely malnourished across 26 nutrition crises.

Why?

  • Conflict
  • Economic shocks
  • Climate extremes
  • Forced displacement

The report makes dismal reading.  These crises may seem remote, but if people cannot survive in their own countries, they will migrate.  We are one world and we will be much better off if everyone else is too.

 

May 22 2025

Food product innovation of the week: frozen PB & J sandwiches

I was astounded to see this headline:

Kellanova eyes frozen PB&J as next-gen Lunchables push into hot and cold aisles.  Kellanova is developing frozen peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as part of its strategy to expand Lunchables into new temperature zones, aiming to compete with products like Uncrustables and diversify its snack portfolio.Read More

Oops.  It’s not Kellanova doing this.  It’s Kraft Heinz’s product.

Lunchables PB&J is a no-thaw, crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich that also includes a side of grape or strawberry flavored dip. While most ready-to-eat PB&Js are frozen, Lunchables’ offering can be eaten straight from the refrigerator with no need to wait for it to thaw.

Wait!  How did I miss this?  There already are frozen PB&J sandwiches?

People think these are better than putting their own peanut butter and jam on bread?

OK.  Whatever.

(I am so the wrong generation for these things).

May 21 2025

Concerns about food safety regulation (or the lack thereof)

[Personal note: my graduation address today at Hopkins has been rain-postponed to 1:00 EDT .  It will be streamed here.]

Food safety is always a difficult topic because nobody wants to talk about it.

  • We expect the food we buy to be safe (a quite reasonable expection, in my view).
  • Food companies, by law, are supposed to produce foods safely.
  • Regulators are supposed to make sure they do.

Any breakdown in rules and regulations causes problems.  Three troubling examples:

I.  Sentient Food: Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action

These letters, recently obtained by the advocacy group Farm Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the world’s largest meat producers — JBS, Cargill, and Tyson — raised cattle that tested positive for antibiotics prohibited under USDA-approved labels advertising the beef as free of antibiotics…These findings were announced last August, but the names of the companies which tested positive for antibiotics were not made publicly available until recently, as part of a new report released by Farm Forward questioning the validity of this popular label.

II.  Phyllis Entis: Manufacturer repeatedly shipped pet food after presumptive-positive pathogen test results

During the 2024 calendar year, Morasch Meats, Inc. (Portland, OR) sold dozens of batches of Northwest Naturals raw pet foods and pet treats after the finished products tested presumptive-positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes.

Instead of confirming the presumptive result as required by the test kit manufacturer, the company repeated the same rapid test on fresh samples. When the repeat test did not find the pathogen, Morasch released the production batch for sale.

III.  Food Safety News:   Intent or impact? New rules redefine food safety justice

On May 9, President Trump signed Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations, an executive order directing agencies like the FDA and USDA to limit criminal charges for food safety violations unless companies knowingly break the law. The executive order discourages criminal charges for unintentional violations…while deliberate acts, like falsifying tests, remain subject to prosecution…Critics, including consumer advocates, warn that the executive order, combined with reported cuts to FDA and USDA staff, could weaken deterrence against food safety violations.

Comment: When it comes to food safety, enforcement regulation is essential.  History tells us that unwatched food companies sometimes tend to let safety measures slide.  FDA and USDA food safety inspectors need to be on the job.  FDA inspectors have been cutUSDA staff cuts undoubtedly will affect meat inspections.   None of this bodes well for the safety of the US food supply.

May 20 2025

The next tragic—absurd—budget cut: SNAP-ED

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

May 19 2025

Industry-funded studies of the week: Avocados

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?

May 16 2025

The Fish Counter: coming June 10

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
Tags: ,