Search results: public health strategies

I was invited yesterday to a press event to announce the results of a survey conducted by Share Our Strength’s Cooking Matters program.  The program and the survey, It’s Dinnertime: A Report on Low-Income Families’ Efforts to Plan, Shop for and Cook Healthy Meals, are sponsored by the ConAgra Foods Foundation.

I went because I was interested in the survey and also because I admire the work of chef Sara Moulton who, among many other things, works with Share Our Strength on this program.

Cooking Matters is part of Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry Campaign.  Its goal is to help low-income families increase access to public food resources (food assistance benefits, farmers’ market coupons) and produce healthy meals at low cost.  It does this through a 6-week course that teaches shopping strategies, meal planning, and cooking.

The research produced some important findings, perhaps obvious:

• 8 out of 10 low-income families cook at home at least 5 times per week, more if they are poorer.
• 85% of low-income families consider eating healthy meals to be important and realistic.
• Low-income families struggle to put healthy meals on the table: food costs and preparation time are big barriers.
• Low-income families are eager for cooking and budgeting tips and tools.

Where does ConAgra fit in?

ConAgra owns countless food product brands that pack the center aisles of supermarkets.

Working under the premise that it takes more than food to fight hunger, the ConAgra Foods Foundation, a national sponsor of Cooking Matters, funded It’s Dinnertime as part of its ongoing strategy to find sustainable solutions to help surround kids with the nourishment they need to flourish.

The ConAgra Foods Foundation is funded solely by ConAgra Foods.  One of the study’s conclusions is very much in ConAgra’s interest.

A better understanding of the health benefits of frozen and canned fruits and vegetables could also put more healthy options in reach for low-income families: While 81 percent of low-income parents rated fresh produce as extremely healthy, that rating drops down to 32 percent when it comes to frozen fruits and vegetables and 12 percent with canned fruits and vegetables.

The program works to improve the image of frozen and canned fruits and vegetables among low-income families.

Ordinarily, food industry-sponsored programs make me squirm.  This one makes me squirm less than most even though Sara Moulton was cooking with at least one ConAgra product: Wesson Oil.

But the program worked with 18,000 families last year and its goals make sense.

Canned and frozen fruits and vegetables really do retain much of the nutritional value of fresh produce unless they are loaded with salt and sugars.  Sara was cooking with low-salt products and the dishes she made were easy, inexpensive, nutritious, and quite delicious.

I’m impressed with how this program teaches families to fend for themselves in today’s tough environment.

Now, if ConAgra would just get busy promoting policies to improve access to healthy foods for everyone….

 

I’m just back from judging Google’s first Science Fair for kids 13 to 18 at its corporate headquarters in California (yes, those are tomatoes growing in the foreground).

Google’s famous food program: Why famous?  It is:

• Available 24/7
• Totally free
• Varied and delicious
• Designed to promote health as well as environmental values (local, organic, sustainable)

On this last point, the recycling program is comprehensive and the campus is planted with organic vegetables, free for the picking:

But what about the “freshman 15”?

If free food is available 24/7, isn’t Google creating a classic “obesogenic” environment?  Do new Google employees gain weight?

Indeed, they do, and this creates a dilemma for the food team.  I met with Joe Marcus, Google’s food program manager, and executive chef Scott Giambastiani.  Free and very good food, they explain, is an important recruiting perk for Google.   Employees learn to manage it.  And those who are eating healthy food for the first time in their lives find that they actually lose weight.

Google’s food labeling program

Google labels its snacks, drinks, and the foods prepared in its 25 or so cafeterias with traffic lights: green (eat anytime), yellow (once in a while), or red (not often, please).  It bases the decisions about which food goes where on the Harvard School of Public Health’s healthy eating pyramid.   It labels foods at the top of the Harvard pyramid red, the ones in the middle yellow, and those at the bottom green.

In theory this makes sense as a starting point.  In practice, it tends to seem a bit like nutritionism—reducing the value of the foods to a few key nutrients.

The difficulties are most evident in the snack foods, freely available from kiosks all over the campus.   Products are displayed on shelves labeled red, yellow, or green.  For example:

GREEN: Sun chips, 1.5 oz, 210 kcal, 10 g fat, 180 mg sodium, 3 g sugar, 4 g fiber

YELLOW: Lentil chips, 1 oz, 110 kcal, 3 g fat, 170 mg sodium, 1 g sugar, 3 g fiber

YELLOW: Walnuts, 0.8 oz, 150 kcal, 15 g fat, 0 g sodium, 1 g sugar, 2 g fiber

RED:  Luau BBQ chips, 1.5 oz, 210 kcal,  14 g fat, 158 mg sodium, 2 g sugar, 1 g fiber

Note: the weights of the packages are not the same, so the amounts are not really comparable, but the ranking scheme seems to give most credit for fiber.

As for these and the foods cooked in cafeterias, Google uses other strategies to promote healthier choices.  It:

• Puts the healthiest products at eye level
• Uses small plates
• Tries to include vegetables in everything
• Makes healthier options available at all times
• Uses the smallest sizes of snack foods (packages of 2 Oreos, rather than 6)
• Makes it easy to be physically active (Google bicycles!)

The only place on the campus where employees pay for food is from a vending machine.  The pricing strategy is based on nutrient content, again according to the Harvard pyramid plan.  For the vended products, you pay:

• one cent per gram of sugar
• two cents per gram of fat
• four cents per gram of saturated fat
• one dollar per gram of trans fat

On this basis, Quaker Chewy Bars are 15 cents each, Famous Amos cookies re 55 cents, and an enormous Ghirardelli chocolate bar is $4.25.  Weights don’t count and neither do calories.  The machine is not run by Google.  Whoever does it has a sense of humor.

Impressive, all this.  Not every company can feed its nearly 30,000 employees like this but every company can adopt some of these strategies.  It might save them some health care costs, if nothing else.

This page lists books and articles. Books start under the first photo, and articles under the second.

BOOKS: For more information on books, click here

• 2022:  Nestle M.  SLOW COOKED: AN UNEXPECTED LIFE IN FOOD POLITICS.  University of California Press.  
• 2020: Nestle M, Trueman K.  LET’S ASK MARION: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE POLITICS OF FOOD, NUTRITION, AND HEALTH, University of California Press.
• 2018: Nestle M.  UNSAVORY TRUTH: HOW FOOD COMPANIES SKEW THE SCIENCE OF WHAT WE EAT, Basic Books.  Portuguese (Brazil) edition, 2019.
• 2015: Nestle M.  SODA POLITICS: TAKING ON BIG SODA (AND WINNING), Oxford University Press.  Paperback, 2017.
• 2013: Nestle M.  EAT, DRINK, VOTE: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO FOOD POLITICS, Rodale Books.
• 2012: Nestle M, Nesheim M. WHY CALORIES COUNT: FROM SCIENCE TO POLITICS, University of California Press.  Paperback, 2013.
• 2010: Nestle M, Nesheim MC. FEED YOUR PET RIGHT, Free Press/Simon & Schuster.
• 2008: Nestle M. PET FOOD POLITICS: THE CHIHUAHUA IN THE COAL MINE, University of California Press. Paperback, 2010.
• 2006: Nestle M. WHAT TO EAT, North Point Press/Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Paperback, 2007. Hebrew (Israel) edition, 2007.
• 2003: Nestle M. SAFE FOOD: BACTERIA, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND BIOTERRORISM, University of California Press.  Paperback 2004; Chinese edition 2004, Japanese edition 2009. Revised and expanded edition retitled SAFE FOOD: THE POLITICS OF FOOD SAFETY, 2010.   
• 2002: Nestle M. FOOD POLITICS: HOW THE FOOD INDUSTRY INFLUENCES NUTRITION AND HEALTH, University of California Press. Paperback 2003; Revised and expanded edition 2007; Chinese edition, 2004; Japanese edition, 2005; 10th Anniversary Edition with a Foreword by Michael Pollan, 2013.
• 1985: Nestle M. NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE. Greenbrae CA: Jones Medical Publications. Asian edition, 1986. Greek edition, 1987.

Edited Books

• 2016: Williams SN, Nestle M, eds.  BIG FOOD: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE GLOBAL GROWTH OF THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY. Routledge. 2017: Paperback.
• 2004: Nestle M, Dixon LB, eds. TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN NUTRITION AND FOOD, McGraw Hill/Dushkin.
• 1988: Nestle M, managing ed.  THE SURGEON GENERAL’S REPORT ON NUTRITION AND HEALTH. Department of Health and Human Services.

ARTICLES (SELECTED): For the most part, these are columns, professional articles, book chapters, letters, and book reviews for which links or pdf’s are available (or will be when I get time to find or create them). Additional publications are listed in the c.v. link in the About page.

• Columns in the San Francisco Chronicle
• Let’s Ask Marion Q and A (with Kerry Trueman)
• Q and A in NYU’s Washington Square News, Spring 2012
  

2023

• Nestle M.  Regulating the food industry: an aspirational agenda.  In: Bittman M, ed.  The Best American Food Writing 2023: 143-150. Mariner Books, 2023.
• Nestle M.  The USDA’s MyPlate should not be your plate.  Bottom Line.  2023;4(Nos. 17 & 18, September 1):22.
• Eric Crosbie, Laura Schmidt, Jim Krieger, Marion Nestle.  Chapter 14. Sugar Sweetened Beverages.  In Maani N, Petticrew M, Galea S, eds.  The Commercial Determinants of Health.  Oxford University Press, 2022:131-140.
• Nestle M.  Guest editor.  Policies and Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Family Nutrition.  American Journal of Public Health, 2023;113(53 Suppl 3): 163-247. 
• Nestle M. Equitable access to the USDA’s food assistance programs: policies needed to reduce barriers and increase accessibility. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(53 Suppl 3):S167–S170.  doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2023.307480.

2022

• Nestle M.  First Opinion: FDA’s plan to define ‘healthy’ for food packaging: Better than the existing labeling anarchy, but do we really need it? STAT News, October 7, 2022.
• Nestle M.  Preventing Obesity: It Is Time for Multiple Policy Strategies. JAMA Intern Med. 2022. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.3039
• Nestle M.  Regulating the food industry: an aspirational agenda.  Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):853–858.
• Nestle M.  Bottom Line on the News: Ultra-Processed Foods.  November 1, 2022:11

2021

• Young LR, Nestle M.  Portion Sizes of Ultra-Processed Foods in the United States, 2002 to 2021. American Journal of Public Health 2021;111(12):2223-2226.
• Carlos Augusto Monteiro,Mark Lawrence, Christopher Millett, Marion Nestle, Barry M Popkin, Gyorgy Scrinis, Boyd Swinburn.  The need to reshape global food processing: a call to the United Nations Food Systems Summit.  BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e006885. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006885
• Nestle M.  Public health nutrition deserves more attention.  Review of Jones-Smith J, ed. Public Health Nutrition: Essentials for Practitioners (Johns Hopkins Press, 2020).  American Journal of Public Heath. 2021;111(4):533-535.
• Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Ahmed S, Bailey Z, Bassett MT, Bird M, Bor J, Bor D, Carrasquillo O, Chowkwanyun M, Dickman SL, Fisher S, Gaffney A, Galea S, Gottfried RN, Grumbach K, Guyatt G, Hansen H, Landrigan PH, Lighty M, McKee M, McCormick D, McGretor A, Mirza R, Morris JE, Mukherjee JS, Nestle M, Prine L, Saadi A, Schiff D, Shapiro M, Tesema L, Venkataramani A.  Public policy and health in the Trump era: A Lancet Commission Report.  The Lancet, February 10, 2021.
• Nestle M.  Review of Jessica Harris, Vintage Postcards from the African World: In the Dignity of Their Work and the Joy of Their Play.  Food, Culture, and Society, 2021;743-744.

2020

• Nestle M.  Book review: Jessica Harris, Vintage Postcards from the African World: In the Dignity of Their Work and the Joy of Their Play.  Food, Culture, and Society [published online July 23, 2020, Scheduled for print November 2021].
• Nestle M.  Conflicts of Interest in Food and Nutrition Research.  In: Goldberg AM, ed.  Feeding the World Well: A Framework for Ethical Food Systems.  Johns Hopkins Press, 2020:89-97.
• Nestle M.  A call for food system change.  Review of Tim Lang’s Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them.  Lancet. 2020;395:1685-1686.
• Nestle M.  Link food supplies to public health.  Lilith, Summer 2020;45(2):33-34.
• Nestle M.  What needs to change in the food system?  Food and Environment Reporting Network, April 29, 2020.
• Freudenberg N, Nestle M. A Call for a National Agenda for a Healthy, Equitable, and Sustainable Food System.  American Journal of Public Health. 2020;110(11):1671-1673.
• Nestle M.  These women are just as clueless as men.  Interview in: Presidential: Elizabeth Warren and the Changing Face of Politics.  Regan Arts: 105-109.
• Nestle M.  Forward to McMaster and Jayaraman.  Bite Back: People Taking on Corporate Food and Winning.  University of California Press, 2020:ix-x.
• Bragg MA, Elbel B, Nestle M. Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: : A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17:1624-1639.

2019

• Nestle M. Comment: Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Participants of the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort. PracticeUpdate.com, December 31, 2019.
• Nestle M.  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications. Am J Public Health 2019;109(12):1631-1635.
• Nestle M.  The Trump Administration’s destruction of the Economic Research Service: An American Tragedy.  World Nutrition 2019;10(2):87-91.
• Nestle M.  Letter to a young food studies scholar.  Gastronomica 2019;19(2):2.
• Nestle M.  Primer on US food and nutrition policy and public health: Marion Nestle comments.  Am J Public Health. 2019;109(7):985-986.
• Nestle M.  A food lover’s love of nutrition science, policy, and politics.  European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  2019;73:1551–1555.  Published online April 24, 2019.
• Nestle M.  How neoliberalism ruins traditional diets and health [book reviews].  Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology [book review].  Published online, April 18, 2019.
• Nestle M.  Tribute to Elisabet Helsing.  World Nutrition 2019;10(1):151-156.
• Nestle M.  Comment: Long-Term Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults. PracticeUpdate.com, March 28, 2019. 
• Nestle M. Preface to the Tenth Anniversary Edition of Food Politics.  In: Carole Counihan, Penny Van Esterik, Alice Julier.  Food and Culture: A Reader, 4th Ed.  Routledge, 2019:439-442.
• Nestle M.  Foreword. To Krimsky S.  GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic’s View of Genetically Modified Foods.  MIT Press 2019: x-xii.
• Nestle M.  Foreword to Imhoff D.  The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide.  Island Press, 2019: xi-xii.
• Nestle M.  “Becoming” [Letter].  New York Times Book Review, January 18, 2019.

2018

• Nestle M.  The edible is political [Letter].  The Nation.com, Dec 31, 2018.
• Nestle M.  Managing conflicts in nutrition research: a historical perspective.  In: For whom? Questioning the food and farming research agenda .  Food Ethics Council [London], 2018:9-10.
• Nestle M.  Superfoods are a marketing ploy.  The Atlantic, October 23, 2018 (excerpt from Unsavory Truth).
• Fleury C, Dion C, Besançon S, Giraud G, Salignon P, Dain K, Nestle M, Berran D, Milleliri JM, Hacquin D, Mary C.  La “lutte contre les maladies non transmissibles” une urgence sanitaire mondial.  Le Monde, September 18, 2018.  In English translation.
• Nestle M. Comment on: Effects of replacing diet beverages with water on weight loss and weight maintenance: 18-month follow-up, randomized clinical trial. Practice Update website, June 26, 2018.
• Nestle M.  Perspective: Challenges and Controversial Issues in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1980 to 2015.  Advances in Nutrition, 2018;9:148-150.
• Nestle M.  Public Health Implications of Front-of-Package Labels.  American Journal of Public Health 2018;108(3):320-321.
• Nestle M.  Invited expert comment: Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Cohort Studies.  PracticeUpdate website, Jan 18.
• Nestle M.  Food advocacy for discouraging times.  Edible Boston, Winter 2018:19.
• Nestle M.  Go beyond potatoes—and tomatoes on pizza.  In: Dreisbach S.  Let’s do this!  Eating Well, Jan/Feb 2018:55.
• Nestle M.  Managing Conflicts in Nutrition Research: A Historical Perspective.  Food Ethics Council, 2018:9-10.

2017

• Nestle M.  Foreword to Eric Holt-Giménez, A Foodie’s Guide to Capitalism: Understanding the Political Economy of What We Eat.  Monthly Review Press, 2017.
• Nestle M.  Why the Soda Industry Is the Big Tobacco of Our Times.  Alternet, October 11, 2017.
• Nestle, Marion. “Centering Capitalism in a World of Foodie-ism” Fall 2017 Food First Backgrounder.  Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy.  2017;23(3).
• Nestle M.  Dear Colleagues. Letter on President Trump’s nominee for CDC director and her connection to Coca-Cola.  Dean’s Weekly Update, NYU College of Global Public Health. 2017;48(3): July 28.
• Nestle M. Should nutrition scientists take food-industry funding?  ASN Early Career Nutrition Interest Group Newsletter, Spring/Summer:9-11.
• Nestle M.  Letter: Incorrect impressions concerning industry-sponsored research—reply.  JAMA Internal Medicine 2007;177(3):449.
• Nestle M.  Where to from here? The local food movement 15 years later.  Edible Communities, March 6, 2017.
• Nestle M. Are national food policies helping or hurting obesity prevention? Chapter 95 in Brownell KD, Walsh BT, eds.  Eating Disorders and Obesity: A Comprehensive Handbook.  Guidford Press, 2017:585-590.
• Nestle M. Marion Nestle.  In: Hodgkins M, ed.  Letters to a Young Farmer: On Food, Farming, and Our Future.  Princeton Architectural Press, 2017:154-55.
• Bragg M, Nestle M. The Politics of Government Dietary Advice: The Influence of Big Food. In: Germov, J., Williams, L., eds.  Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, 4rd ed.  Australia & New Zealand: Oxford University Press, 2017:75-85.
• Nestle M. Foreword.  Clapp S.  Fixing the Food System.  Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2017:vii-x.

2016

• Nestle M. Food Politics, the Food Movement, and Public Health.  In: Shiva V., ed.  Seed Sovereignty, Food Security: Women in the Vanguard of the Fight Against GMOs and Corporate Agriculture.  North Atlantic Books, 2016:65-75.
• Nestle M.  Foreword to Joy Santlofer’s Food City: Four Centuries of Food Making in New York City.  WW Norton, 2016:ix-x.
• Delisle H, Nestle M, Besançon S.  Rethinking nutritional policies in developing countries taking into account the double burden of malnutrition.  Ideas for Development, October 18, 2016.
• Delisle H, Nestle M, Besançon S.  Il faut repenser les politiques de nutrition dans les pays en développement en prenant en compte le double fardeau nutritionnel.  Huffington Post (France), October 14, 2016.
• Nestle M.  Food industry funding of nutrition Research: the relevance of history for current debates. JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(11):1685-1686.
• Nestle M. Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production: Update.  In: Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson, Tyler Doggett, eds.  Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings.  Oxford, 2016:346-347.
• Nestle M. The politics of food choice.  In: Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson, Tyler Doggett, eds.  Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings, eds.  Oxford, 2016:596-601.  
• Nestle M.  We are still confused about what calories are.  Time Magazine, June 21, 2016.
• Nestle M.  8 Books on Farming and Food That Deserve More Attention.  Eco Watch, May 10, 2016.
• Nestle M.  Discussion: Dietary nudges for obesity prevention: they work, but additional policies are also needed.  J Assoc Consumer Res 2016;1(3):473-475.
• Nestle M.  Reply to John Peters and James O.Hill.  Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2016;1(3):474.  
• Nestle M. Students are the future of food system transformation.  New Food Economy, June 9, 2016.
• Nestle M.  The FDA’s new rules for food labeling are finally here.  Scientific American guest blog, May 24, 2016.
• Nestle M. Corporate funding of nutrition research and unjustified conclusions–reply [letter in response to letter from Richard Kahn].  JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176(5):717-718.
• Nestle M.  No amount of “free from” labelling will make processed food good for you.  The Guardian, April 2, 2016.
• Nestle M. Utopian dream: a new farm bill (reprint of article in Dissent, 2012).  In Goldthwaite MA, ed.  Norton Reader: an Anthology of Nonfiction, 14th edition.  WW Norton & Co, 2016:274-280.
• Williams SN, Nestle M, guest eds.  “Big Food”: Critical perspectives on the global growth of the food and beverage industry.  Routledge, 2016.
• Nestle M.  The farm bill drove me insane.  Politico, The Agenda, March 17, 2016.  Reprinted in Bill Moyers & Co, March 23.
• Nestle M.  Op-Ed.  The Long Island City Pepsi-Cola sign: hazard, not landmark.  Daily News, March 10, 2016.
• Nestle M. Corporate funding of food and nutrition research: science or marketing.  JAMA Internal Medicine 2016;176:13-14.
• Haspel T, Nestle M.  Forget government guidelines.  Here’s how to eat better in 6 easy steps.  Washington Post, January 4, 2016.

2015

• Nestle M, Rosenberg T. The whole world is watching. Soda wars.  Sugar tax. US, Mexico [Big Food Watch] World Nutrition November-December 2015, 6, 11-12, 811-832.
• Barnoya J, Nestle M.  The food industry and conflicts of interest in nutrition research: A Latin American perspective. Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication, 29 October 2015:1-6; doi:10.1057/jphp.2015.37.  [Retracted]
• Nestle M.  The other benefit to eating less red meat.  CNN, October 26, 2015.
• Nestle M.  Big Soda politics: A call to advocacy.  Policy Innovations, Carnegie Council, October 14, 2015.
• Nestle M.  When soda companies target minorities, is it exploitation?  Washington Post, October 10, 2015.
• Nestle M.   Kerry Trueman: Let’s Ask Marion: Can Exercise Balance Out Soda Drinking?  Civil Eats, August 12, 2015.
• Nestle M.  Coca-Cola says its drinks don’t cause obesity.  Science says otherwise.  The Guardian, August 11, 2015.
• Nestle M. Soda “ban.” In: Smith AF, ed.  Savoring Gotham.  Oxford University Press, 2015:545-546.
• Nestle M. Menu labeling.  In: Smith AF, ed.  Savoring Gotham.  Oxford University Press, 2015:381-382.
• Caley D, Nestle M. Botulism.  In: Albala K, ed.  The Sage Encyclopedia of Food Issues. Sage 2015: 141- 143.
• Caley D, Nestle M. Aflatoxins.  In: Albala K, ed.  The Sage Encyclopedia of Food Issues. Sage 2015: 10-12.
• Nesheim MC, Nestle M. The internationalization of the obesity epidemic: the case of sugar-sweetened sodas.  In: Sahn DE, ed.  The Fight against Hunger and Malnutrition: The Role of Food, Agriculture, and Targeted Policies.  Oxford University Press, 2015:89-106.
• Nestle M.  Eating made simple: How do you cope with a mountain of conflicting diet advice?  Scientific American, Special Collector’s Edition, The Science of Food. Summer 2015:38-45.
• Nestle M.  It’s time to require labels for GMOs.  Time, May 14, 2015.
• Simon DB, Nestle M.  Sugar lobbies.  In: Goldstein D.  The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets.  Oxford University Press, 2015:681-682.
• Nestle M.  Soda.  In: Goldstein D.  The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets.  Oxford University Press, 2015:623-624.
• Nestle M.  Is a Paleo Diet Healthy?  NO: You Lose Too Much Pleasure for Dubious Benefits.  Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2015.
• Williams SN, Nestle M.  Editorial: ‘Big Food’: taking a critical perspective on a global public health problem.  In: Williams SN, Nestle M, guest eds.  “Big Food”: Critical perspectives on the global growth of the food and beverage industry. Critical Public Health 2015;25:245-247.
• Williams SN, Nestle M, guest eds.  “Big Food”: Critical perspectives on the global growth of the food and beverage industry. Critical Public Health 2015;25:245-372.
• Nestle M.  The Plain Truth.   New Scientist, March 14, 2015:24-25.  (The online version)
• Nestle M.  Goodbye to artificial colors?  CNN, March 4, 2015.

2014

• Nestle M.  Günümüzün ´daha fazla ye´ ortamı – Gida sanayisinin rolü (in Turkish).   Yemek ve Kültür 2014;Fall:80-90.
• Nestle M.  Regulation does change eating behavior.  In: Brain Food: Hastings College’s Introduction to the Liberal Arts, 2014-2015.  Hastings College Press, 2014:155-158.
• Nestle M.  The Soda Industry’s Promises Mean Nothing.  Time Magazine, September 30, 2014.
• Nestle M.  No, Cal does not forbid faculty  to express opinions about the soda tax.  Berkeley Times, September 25, 2014:3,15 (reprint of September 23 blog post).
• Nestle M.  How U.S. Citizens can hold their government accountable for preventing and reversing malnutrition.  World Nutrition Report, August 28, 2014.
• Nestle M.  Foreword.  Cognard-Black J, Goldthwaite MA, eds.  Books That Cook: The Making of a Literary Meal.  New York University Press, 2014:xv-xviii.
• Nestle M. Foreword. Poppendieck J. Breadline Knee-Deep in Wheat: Food Assistance in the Great Depression. University of California Press, 2014:ix-xii.
• Nesheim MC, Nestle M. Advice for fish consumption: challenging dilemmas. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014;99:973-974.
• Nestle M, Baron RB. Nutrition in Medical Education: From Counting Hours to Measuring Competence. JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 14, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.440.
• Nestle M. Next, Cut the Soda and Junk Food. New York Times, Room for debate: What other unhealthy products should CVS stop selling? February 7, 2014

2013

• Blumenthal SJ, Hoffnagle EE, Leung CW, Lofink H, Jensen HH, Foerster SB, Cheung LWY, Nestle M, Willett WC. Strategies to improve the dietary quality of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) beneficiaries: An assessment of stakeholder opinions. Public Health Nutrition 2013. doi:10.1017/S1368980013002942.
• Nestle M. A push for policies for sustainable foods systems. Perspectives, FAO, October 9, 2010.
• Nestle M. Conflict of interest in the regulation of food safety: a threat to scientific integrity. JAMA Internal Medicine 2013; Online: doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9158.
• Nestle M. Mediterranean diet month memory—day 26: Marion Nestle remembers a lasting legacy. Oldways, May 26, 2013.
• Nestle M, Cohen L, Waters R. Twinkie insanity hits the House. Politico, May 3, 2013.
• Nestle M. Food is a political issue. World Nutrition May 2013, 4,5, 270-295.
• Nestle M. Doctors should stress food variety, minimal processing, and moderation. In: Hunnicutt S, ed. At Issue: Is the Western Diet Making the World Sick? Greenhaven Press, 2013:71-75.
• Gussow J, Kirschenmann F, Uauy R, Schell O, Nestle M, Popkin B, Cannon G, Monteiro C.
  The American genius. [Appraisals]. World Nutrition 2013;4:150-170.
• Nestle M. School meals: A starting point for countering childhood obesity. JAMA Pediatrics. 2013;():1-2. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.404
• Nestle M. Liberty from big soda. New York Daily News, March 10, 2013.
• Leung C, Blumenthal S, Hoffnagle E, Jensen H, Foerster S, Nestle M, Cheung L, Mozaffarian D, Willett W. Associations of Food Stamp Participation with Obesity and Dietary Quality among Low-income Children. Pediatrics 2013;131:463–472.
• Nestle M, Nesheim MC. To Supplement or Not to Supplement: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Calcium and Vitamin D. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(9):701-702.
• Nestle M. Today’s “eat more” environment: the role of the food industry. In: Pringle P, ed. A Place at the Table: The Crisis of 49 Million Hungry Americans and How to Solve It. PublicAffairs, 2013;95-106.
• Nestle M. Food safety and food security: a matter of public health. In: Estes CL, et al, eds. Health Policy: Crisis and Reform, 6^th ed. Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2013:125-130.
• Nestle M. Politics. In: Smith AF, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Vol 3, Pike-Zomb. Oxford University Press, 2013:28-37.

2012

• Nestle M. Foreword to Fairfax SK et al. California Cuisine and Just Food. MIT Press, 2012:xii-xiv.
• Nestle M. Waistline or bottom line. New Scientist, November 24, 2012:28-29.
• Young LR, Nestle M. Reducing portion sizes to prevent obesity: A call to action. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2012;43(5):565-68.
• Nestle M. Marion Nestle on the Early Nutritionists. In: Taylor MJ, Wolf C, eds. 100 Classic Cookbooks, 501 Classic Recipes. Rizzoli, 2012:46-47.
• Nestle M. Cookbooks and food studies canons. Foreword to Taylor MJ, Wolf C, eds. 100 Classic Cookbooks, 501 Classic Recipes. Rizzoli, 2012:8-9.
• Nesheim M, Nestle M. Is a calorie a calorie? Nova ScienceNow, September 20, 2012.
• Nestle M. Online debate: What role should government play in combating obesity? Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2012.
• Nestle M. Online debate: Buying organics is a personal choice. New York Times, September 10, 2012.
• Temple N, Nestle M. Population Nutrition and Health Promotion. In: Temple NJ, Wilson T, Jacobs DR, eds. Nutritional Health: Strategies for Disease Prevention, 3^rd ed. Humana Press, 212:373-450.
• Nestle M, Wilson T. Food Industry and Political Influences on American Nutrition. In: Temple NJ, Wilson T, Jacobs DR, eds. Nutritional Health: Strategies for Disease Prevention, 3^rd ed. Humana Press, 2012:477-490.
• Stuckler D, Nestle M. Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Medicine 2012;9(6):e1001242 (4 pages).
• Nestle M. Nanotechnology: No One Is Evaluating the Risks! Mother Earth News, April/May 2012:18.
• Nestle M. Better Information and Better Options. Room for Debate: Do We Need More Advice About Eating Well? New York Times online, April 16, 2012.
• Nestle M. Utopian Dream: A New Farm Bill. Dissent 2012:Spring:15-19.
• Joseph M, Nestle M. Food and Politics in the Modern Age: 1920 – 2012. In: Bentley A, ed. A Cultural History of Food in the Modern Age, Vol. 6. Berg, 2112:87-110.
• Isoldi KK, Dalton S, Rodriguez DP, Nestle M. Classroom “cupcake” celebrations: observations of foods offered and consumed. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 2012;44:71-75.

2011

• Nestle M. World’s first “fat tax”: what will it achieve? New Scientist, October 23, 2011:30-31 (Obesity’s Match).
• Nestle M. Food stamps for fast food? No: what the poor need is healthy food. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinal, September 24, 2011.
• Nestle M. School food, public policy, and strategies for change. In: Robert SA, Weaver-Hightower MB, eds. School Food Politics: The Complex Ecology of Hunger and Feeding in Schools Around the World. New York: Peter Lang, 2011:143-46.
• Robbins A, Nestle M. Obesity as collateral damage: a call for papers on the obesity epidemic [editorial]. Journal of Public Health Policy 2011;32:143-45.
  
• Csete J, Nestle M. Global nutrition: complex aetiology demands social as well as nutrient-based solutions. In: Parker R, Sommer M, eds. Routledge Handbook in Global Public Health, Routledge, 2011:303-13.

2010

• Nestle M.  Ultra-processing: This is important work. World Nutrition 2010;1(8):306-309.
• Nestle M. Doctor’s orders: What should doctors tell patients about nutrition? San Francisco Medicine 2010;83 (November):10,14.
• Nestle M, Ludwig DS. Banning front-of-package food labels. Response to Lytton. Letter to editor Public Health Nutrition online December 1, 2010.
• Nestle M. Why are so many Americans overweight? YOU Asked. America.gov (U.S. State Department Bureau of International Information).
• Nestle M, Wansink B, Heber D, Skelton JA, Sothern MS, Cohen DA, Kibler C. Industry Watch: Will private sector companies “step up to the plate” to protect children’s health? Childhood Obesity 2010;6:247.
• Warren C, Nestle M. Big food, big agra, and the research university. Academe 2010;Nov-Dec:47-49. Also available at Academe Online.
• Nestle M. Strategies to Prevent Childhood Obesity Must Extend Beyond School Environments. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010;39:380-81.
• Nestle M. Health care reform in action: calorie labeling goes national [Perspective]. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;362:2343-2345.
• Nestle M. Writing the food studies revolution. Food, Culture & Society 2010;13(2):159-16811.
• Nestle M. New York’s calorie counts: a good national model. Newsweek, April 30, 2010online, May 10, 2010.
• Nestle M, Ludwig D. Front of package food labels: public health or propaganda [Commentary]. JAMA 2010:303:771-772 (scroll down to get to the paper).
• Nestle M. Give the “fair sex” a fair shake [letter]. Science 2010;327:523 (scroll to next page to get to the letter).
  

2009

• Joseph M, Nestle M. The ethics of food. Lahey Clinic Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;16(1):1-7. Online at RealitySandwich.com.
• Nestle M. What Obama can do in the USA [invited commentary]. Public Health Nutrition 2009;12(3):433-435.
• Nestle M. Reading the Food Social Movement. World Literature Today 2009; January-February:37-39.
• Nestle M. A ration of gruel. New York Times [Letter], January 6, 2009: D4.
• Nestle M. Foreword to Jenkins NH, The New Mediterranean Diet Cookbook. New York: Bantam Books, 2009: xi-xiii.

2008

• Ludwig D, Nestle M. Can the food industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic? JAMA 2008;300;1808-1811.
• Woolf SH, Nestle M. Do dietary guidelines explain the obesity epidemic? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;34(3):263-265.
• Nestle M. Cookie grumbles [letter]. New York Times, July 16, 2008.
• Nestle M. Open forum: The politics of food safety [op-ed]. San Francisco Chronicle, December 16, 2008:B5.
• Falbe JL, Nestle M. The politics of government dietary advice. In: Germov J, Williams L, eds. A Sociology of Food & Nutrition: The Social Appetite, 3rd ed. Oxford, 2008:127-146.

2007

• Nestle M. Eating made simple. Scientific American, September 2007:60-69
• Young L, Nestle M. Portion sizes and obesity: response of fast food companies. Journal of Public Health Policy 2007 28:238-242.
• Nestle M. Nutrition In public health and preventive medicine. Chapter 72 in Wallace RB, ed. Wallace/Maxcy-Rosenau-Last, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, 15^th ed, McGraw Hill Medical, 2007:1195-1203.
• Nestle M, Nesheim MC. Additional information on melamine in pet food [letter]. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2007;231:1647.
• Nesheim MC, Nestle M. Pet Food. In: Allen G, Albala K, eds. The Business of Food: Encyclopedia of the Food and Drink Industries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007:297-301.

2006

• Nestle M. Food marketing and childhood obesity—a matter of policy [Perspective]. New England Journal of Medicine 2006;354:2527-2528.
• Nestle M. Trans fat nation. New York Times [op-ed], October 1, 2006:WK-11.
• Nestle M. One thing to do about food: a forum. The Nation September 11, 2006:14.
• Nestle M. Food industry and health: mostly promises, little action. Lancet 2006; 368:564-565.
• Nestle M. Trans fat nation. New York Times [op-ed], October 1, 2006:WK-11.
• Nestle M. The spinach fallout: restoring trust in California produce. San Jose Mercury News (Perspectives), October 22, 2006.
• Lewin A, Lindstrom L, Nestle M. Food industry promises to address childhood obesity: preliminary evaluation. Journal of Public Health Policy 2006;27:327-348.
• Marion Nestle’s 10 books to read about food. Amazon.com, March 10, 2006.
• Nestle M.  Health, diet, and the politics of dietary guidelines: commentary.  In: Remillard G, ed.  Understanding and Overcoming Obesity: The Need for Action.   Montreal: Decision Media: 2006: 21-38.

2002 – 2005

• Nestle M. Preventing childhood diabetes: The need for public health intervention (editorial). American Journal of Public Health 2005;95:1497-1499.
• Nestle M. Increasing portion sizes in American diets: more calories, more obesity (commentary). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003;103:39-40.

• Berg J, Nestle M, Bentley A. Food studies. In: Katz SH, Weaver WW, eds. The Scribner Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, Vol 2. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003:16-18.

• Nestle M. The ironic politics of obesity (editorial). Science 2003:299:781.

• Nestle M. Not good enough to eat (commentary). New Scientist 2003;177 (February 22):25.

• Nestle M. Hearty Fare? Review of Faergeman, O. Coronary Heart Disease: Genes, Drugs, and the Agricultural Connection. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003. Nature 2003;425:902.

• Nestle M. Thinking about food (letter). Wilson Quarterly Autumn 2003 [27(4)]:4.

• Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding Portion Sizes to the U.S. obesity epidemic. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:246-249.
• Mahabir S, Coit D, Liebes L, Brady MS, Lewis JJ, Roush G, Nestle M, Fay D, Berwick M. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dietary supplementation of a-tocopherol on mutagen sensitivity levels in melanoma patients: a pilot trial. Melanoma Research 2002;12:83-90.
• Byers T, Nestle M, McTeirnan A, Doyle C, Currie-Williams A, Gansler T, Thun M, and the American Cancer Society 2001 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer with Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity. CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2002;52:92-119.
• Fried EJ, Nestle M. The growing political movement against soft drinks in schools (commentary). Journal of the American Medical Association 2002;288:2181.

2001

• Nestle M. Genetically engineered “golden” rice unlike to overcome vitamin A deficiency (letter). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2001;101:289-290.

• Nestle M. Nutrition and women’s health: the politics of dietary advice [editorial]. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association 2001;56:42-43.

• Kumanyika SK, Morssink CB, Nestle M. Minority women and advocacy for women’s health. American Journal of Public Health 2001;91:1383-1388.

• Nestle M. Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: A conflict of interest? Public Health Nutrition 2001;4:1015-1022.

• Nestle M. Review of: Bendich A, Deckelbaum RJ, eds. Primary and Secondary Preventive Nutrition (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2001). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2001;74:704.

2000

• Nestle M, Jacobson MF. Halting the obesity epidemic: A public health policy approach. Public Health Reports 2000;115:12-24.
• Nestle M. Soft drink “pouring rights:” marketing empty calories. Public Health Reports 2000;115:308-319.
• Nestle M.  Paleolithic diets: a sceptical view. Nutrition Bulletin 2000; 25:43-47.
• Nestle M. Ethical dilemmas in choosing a healthful diet: Vote with your fork! Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (UK) 2000;59:619-629.
• Nestle M. Gene-altered food [letter]. New York Times [Science Times], December 19, 2000:F3.

1999

• Nestle M. Hunger in America: A Matter of Policy. Social Research 1999;66(1): 257-282.
• Nestle M. Commentary [dietary guidelines]. Food Policy 1999;24(2-3):307-310.
• Nestle M. Meat or wheat for the next millennium? Plenary lecture: animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: is the historical record unequivocal? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 1999;58:211-218 (online here).
• Nestle M. Heart disease’s decline (letter). New York Times, August 12, 1999:A18.
• Nestle M. Dietary supplement advertising: a matter of politics, not science. Journal of Nutrition Education 1999;31:278-282.

1998

• Young LR, Nestle M. Variation in perceptions of a “medium” food portion: implications for dietary guidance. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998;98:458-459.

• Nestle M. Food biotechnology: labeling will benefit industry as well as consumers. Nutrition Today 1998;33(1):6-12.

• Nestle M, Wing R, Birch L, et al. Behavioral and social influences on food choice. Nutrition Reviews 1998;56:s50-s64.

• Singer AJ, Werther K, Nestle M. Improvements are needed in hospital diets to meet dietary guidelines for health promotion and disease prevention. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998;98:639-641.

• Nestle M. Toward more healthful dietary patterns—a matter of policy. Public Health Reports 1998;113:420-423.

• Nestle M. In defense of the USDA Food Guide Pyramid. Nutrition Today 1998;33(5):189-197.

• Nestle M. The selling of olestra. Public Health Reports s 1998;113:508-520.

1987-1997

• Nestle M.Broccoli sprouts as inducers of carcinogen-detoxifying enzyme systems: clinical, dietary, and policy implications [Commentary].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 1997;94:11149-11151.

• Nestle M.The role of chocolate in the American diet: nutritional perspectives.In: Szogyi A, ed.Chocolate, Food of the Gods.Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1997:111-124.

• Nestle M. Allergies to transgenic foods–questions of policy [editorial]. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:726-728 (Note: it’s the 3rd one in the pdf).

• Young LR, Nestle M. Portion sizes in dietary assessment: issues and policy implications.Nutrition Reviews 1995;53:149-158.

• Young LR, Nestle M. Food labels consistently underestimate the actual weights of single-serving baked products.Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1995;95:1150-1151.

• Nestle M. Mediterranean diets: historical and research overview. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1995;61 (suppl):1313s-1320s.

• Nestle M. Folate fortification and neural tube defects: policy implications. Journal of Nutrition Education 1994;26(6):287-293.

• Nestle M. Traditional models of healthy eating: alternatives to “techno-food.” Journal of Nutrition Education 1994;26(5):241-245.
• Nestle M. Nutrition data require high research priority. CNI Nutrition Week, December 16, 1994:6-7.
• Nestle M.  Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and U.S. nutrition policy.   International Journal of Health Services, 1993;23:483-496.
• Nestle M. Dietary advice for the 1990s: the political history of the food guide pyramid.Caduceus: A Humanities Journal for Medicine and the Health Sciences 1993:9:136-153.
• Nestle M.  A missed opportunity? The ICN & U.S. food policy. Nutrition Week 1992;22(28):4-5.
• Nestle M.  USDA’s dietary guidelines: health goals meet politics.   Nutrition Week 1992;22(31):4-5.

• Nestle M.Epidemiologists’ Paradise.Junshi C, Campbell TC, Junyao L, Peto R.Diet, Life-style, and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties.NY: Oxford University Press, 1990 [book review].BioScience 1991;41:725-726.

• Nestle M. National nutrition monitoring policy: the continuing need for legislative intervention. J Nutrition Education 1990;22:141-144.

• Nestle M, Porter DV. Evolution of federal dietary guidance policy: from food adequacy to chronic disease prevention.Caduceus: A Museum Journal for the Health Sciences 1990;6(2):43-67.

• McGinnis JM, Nestle M. The Surgeon General’s report on nutrition and health: policy implications and implementation strategies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition1989;49:23-28.

• Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health. Publ. No. (PHS) 88-50210. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988, 712 pages [Managing Editor]. Reprint: Prima Publishing, 1989. Reprint: Warner Books, 1989.

• Nestle M. Promoting health and preventing disease: national nutrition objectives for 1990 and 2000. Food Technology 1988;42(2):103-107.
• Nestle M, Lee PR, Baron, RB. Nutrition policy update.  In: Weininger J, Briggs GM, eds.  Nutrition Update, Vol 1.  New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983:285-313.

1968-1972 Dissertation and Postdoctoral Papers

Nestle M, Sussman M.  The effect of cyclic-AMP on morphogenesis and enzyme accumulation in Dictyostelium discoideum.  Developmental Biology 1972;28:545-554.

Nestle M, Roberts WK.  An extracellular nuclease from Serratia marcescens. II. Specificity of the enzyme.  Journal of Biological Chemistry 1969;244:5219-5225.

Nestle M, Roberts WK.  An extracellular nuclease from Serratia marcescens. I.  Purification and some properties of the enzyme.  Journal of Biological Chemistry 1969;244:5213-5218.

Nestle M, Roberts WK.  Separation of ribonucleosides and ribonucleotides by a one-dimensional paper chromatographic system. Analytical Biochemistry 1968;22:349-351.

 

 

I was guest editor for a supplement to the American Journal of Public Health: Policies and Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Family Nutrition.

It is open access so you can access it here.

I wrote the lead editorial: Equitable Access to the USDA’s Food Assistance Programs: Policies Needed to Reduce Barriers and Increase Accessibility.  113(S3), pp. S167–S170.  

This special supplement to AJPH deals with a critically important topic: enabling and increasing access to federal nutrition assistance programs among low-income Americans who are eligible for these programs but unaware, unable, or unwilling to participate in them. To help identify the barriers to nonparticipation and to recommend policies to reduce them, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded research projects aimed at these goals, especially as they pertain to families with young children.  PDF/EPUB

Editor’s choice

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), as part of its IFAD Research Series, released a report, Overweight and obesity in LMICs in rural development and food systems, along with a literature review.

The report finds obesity rates across developing countries to be approaching levels found in high-income countries.

The study attributes the rise to:

• Food Prices: The price gap between healthy foods (expensive) and unhealthy foods (inexpensive) is greater in developing countries than in rich developed countries.
• Diet: Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is on the rise in developing countries and the global sales of highly processed foods rose from 67.7kg per capita in 2005 to 76.9kg in 2017.
• Culture: In some developing countries, childhood fatness is associated with health and wealth and consumption of unhealthy foods carries prestige.
• Gender: Women are more likely to be overweight or obese than men in nearly all developing countries.

One strength of this study is its consideration of the need for interventions across the entire food system:

The study results show that food system-related interventions are not overweight or obesity specific. Instead, they tap into the wider field of making diets more healthy and nutritious, and emerge as necessary strategies to set the scene for creating non-obesogenic food supply chains. The identified intervention strategies cut across different food system domains: there were production strategies for improved dietary diversity, strategies for processing (which involved food package labelling or price mechanisms), strategies for changing the food environment and strategies to address consumer behaviour.

Increasingly and more urgently concerned about the effects on children of unrestricted marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages, UNICEF and WHO have produced an invaluable manual on why and how governments must act to curb such marketing.

This is a follow up to the UNICEF report I talked about last week on engagement with food and beverage companies and to the WHO recommendations I posted about yesterday.

WHO and UNICEF are on a roll!

The rationale for this publication:

Food and beverage companies play a significant role in shaping children’s food environments, but their objectives are profit driven rather than child centred. They have a vested commercial interest in increasing sales of their unhealthy products and use highly immersive, engaging – and often unethical – marketing techniques to target children and their caregivers.
We know that food marketing harms children. It negatively affects children’s food preferences, purchase decisions and consumption behaviours, ultimately contributing to childhood obesity and diet-related disease. Food marketing also affects household purchasing decisions and the types of foods that are eaten in the home.

Among this report’s key messages:

• The evidence is clear that food marketing harms children – especially the poorest and most vulnerable.
• Tackling food marketing is challenging: past experience shows that food companies use loopholes and develop new strategies to bypass restrictions.
• Voluntary schemes are ineffective in reducing children’s exposure to foodmarketing.
• Mandatory regulation has the potential to be the most effective path to protecting children from the harmful impact of food
  marketing

Governments must act.  Now.

This exceptionaly timely and important report explains how.

Last week, I attended and spoke at the UNICEF-WHO Global Congress on Implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes at WHO headquarters in Geneva.

The meeting was attended by more than 400 government, health, and advocacy representatives from more than 100 countries.  Representatives of infant formula companies were not invited to participate.

Its purpose was to encourage governments to promote and enforce the International Code, which nearly all U.N. member states ratified and committed to in 1981 (the U.S. was a long-standing holdout).

This meant they would control inappropriate marketing of infant formulas by banning advertising to people who are pregnant or nursing, gifts of formula samples, and doing anything to make formula appear superior to breastfeeding.

The logic of the Congress:

• Breastfeeding is the superior method for feeding human babies.
• Successful breastfeeding requires support from families, society, and government.
• It is quite easy to undermine confidence in the ability to breastfeed.
• Formula companies do all they can to undermine confidence in breastfeeding.
• Formula companies’ main goal is to sell more formula.
• Formula companies promote their products as normal and superior.
• Breastfeeding is easier when formula marketing is controlled.y

I talked about the food industry “playbook”—strategies and tactics used by industries (tobacco, chemical, drug, alcohol, and food as well as infant formula) to cast doubt on unfavorable research, fund their own research, and lobby against public health recommendations (photo: Arum Gupta).

Many country representatives discussed the effects of the playbook in their areas, and what they are trying to do to stop formula companies from using  the playbook to get around the Code.

The general consensus:  Formula companies should NOT be allowed to:

• Advertise or market products in violation of the Code.
• Participate in public health policymaking.
• Partner with relevant government agencies or non-governmental groups.

Obviously, formula companies are not happy with such recommendations.  If you would like to see an example of the playbook in action, take a look at the response  from the International Special Dietary Foods Industries.

It was exciting to be with so many people who cared so deeply about this issue.

Resources

• WHO Breastfeeding page
• WHO International Code FAQ
• The Global Breastfeeding Collective

 

The International Food Information Coouncil (IFIC) headlines its website:  “We promote science-based information on nutrition, food safety and agriculture.”

IFIC is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) education and consumer research organization that communicates evidence-based information on health, dietary patterns, ingredient safety and agricultural production. Our vision is a global environment where credible science drives food decisions.

I have long argued that any time you hear a food company or organization say it is “science-based,” you need to imagine a red warning flag flying into the air.  The term unfailingly means do not criticize food products unless you can prove conclusively that they do harm.  This, of course, is virtually impossible in populations that consume many different foods in meals from day to day.

IFIC lists health organization partners on its website.   Finding out who funds it is not so easy.

IFIC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization governed by a Board of Trustees, the majority of whom are independent, academic researchers. Our work is primarily supported by grants and contributions from the private sector. IFIC is non-partisan. IFIC does not represent any company, industry or product. IFIC does not lobby or serve as an advocacy organization.

Who in the private sector?  The FAQ takes you to the same health organization partners and to an uninformative 990 tax form.  Who funds IFIC?  According to SourceWatch, food companies used to provide the bulk of funding but I’ve been unable to find a list of current funders.

I’m curious about this because investigators associated with the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins and US Right to Know have just published: “How independent is the international food information council from the food and beverage industry? A content analysis of internal industry documents.”

The study team reviewed emails and documents obtained via public records requests related to IFIC and the IFIC Foundation, with the purpose of describing how IFIC generates and disseminates nutrition information to policy stakeholders and the general public. Results from this content analysis suggest IFIC communicates nutrition information to broad audiences using a variety of tactics designed to shape preferences about the link between unhealthy foods and chronic disease outcomes, manufacture doubt about existing evidence linking certain foods to negative health outcomes, and influence key opinion leaders in academia and government positions to support limited public health interventions designed to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods.

IFIC, they charge, is a food industry front group (this has been known for a long time) Their observations of industry funding sources date to 2018.

I’ve always thought IFIC was the most reasonable of industry front groups, perhaps because of its now former long time president, Sylvia Rowe, who understood consumer concerns exceptionally well.

This paper documents IFIC’s strategies in promoting food industry interests.

Documents

• The news release for this paper
• US Right to Know’s Fact Sheet on IFIC
• Gary Ruskin’s tweet thread on the paper

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.