Search results: app

The White House says it is taking steps to alleviate the nationwide shortage of infant formula.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi has written a letter to democrats demanding action.

Nationwide shortage of infant formula?

As CBS News explained,

At retailers across the U.S., 40% of the top-selling baby formula products were out of stock as of the week ending April 24…Prices of baby formula, which three-quarters of babies in the U.S. receive within their first six months, have also spiked…Supply-chain snarls related to COVID-19 are contributing to the shortage of formula around the U.S. They include manufacturers having more difficulty procuring key ingredients, packaging hangups and labor shortages…In addition, a major baby formula recall in January exacerbated shortages.

I wrote about the Abbott recall earlier, on February 22 and March 8.

Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich has been following this story closely in Politico.  You can find her articles here.

Her writing is getting action.

For example, Representative Rosa deLauro released a whistleblower report warning about food safety concerns months before infants died and the FDA investigated.

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler posted a link to the redacted  whistleblower report.

He says: Mr. Abbott, you are going to jail for manufacturing tainted infant formula.

The legal jargon aside, if you are a producer of food and knowingly or not manufacturer and sell adulterated food, you can (and should) face fines and jail time.  For Abbott, at least 4 kids were sickened and of those two died, from drinking infant formula.

Here is the most recent inspection report at the plant – APPLIED – FOI II – BR Abbott Nutritions- FEI# 1815692 9-2021 EIR.

In the meantime, Bottemiller Evich keeps the focus on how hard this situation is for parents of infants with special nutritional needs.  She also has a Twitter thread on this “slow-moving train wreck.”  She reproduces this graphic from @erindataviz/@datasembly:

The Seattle Times has a particularly useful guide to what to do—and what not to do—if you can’t find the formula you need.

As to what this is really about, see:

The Morning.  This New York Times column attributes this particular shortage to general shortages, monopoly concentration in the formula business, bureaucratic inflexibility, and, most of all, American gerontocracy and overall indifference to the welfare of young children.

A blogger about the politics of monopoly, Matt Stoller, expands on these themes:  baby formula monopoly, FDA collusion, and USDA’s methods for dealing with infant formula in the WIC program (this last alone is reason to read this piece).  In response, the USDA says it is granting states flexibility in apply the WIC rules.

And the Cato Institute has an informative piece on trade restrictions that prevent import of formula from other countries, including the European Union; this pieces also discusses the WIC problem (Government is major buyer; Abbott is major supplier).

Comment: This is a really bad situation that is finally starting to get attention.  Babies are completely dependent on infant formula if they are not being breastfed.  It needs to contain all the right nutrients, but it also needs to be safe.

The FDA says it is taking steps to alleviate the formulat shortage.

Why hasn’t it acted more swiftly?  Perhaps because of what Bottemiller Evich wrote about previously?  See The FDA’s Food Failure.

Basically, we are seeing the results of unregulated monopolies and captured government.  With the most vulnerable members of society—and society’s future—at risk.

Additional links

• Letter from 8 Senators headed by Cory Booker to USDA Secretary Vilsack calling for greater formula competition
• Letter from USDA Secretary Vilsack calling on Abbott to provide rebates for competitive formula
• Politico: Senator Tammy Duckworth calls on the FTC to examine lack of competition in the formula market
• Center for Science in the Public Interest urges policymakers in Washington to deploy additional tools
• Congressional subcommittee to investigate shortages
• Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials to Address Infant Formula Shortage
• Readout of President Biden’s Virtual Meetings with Retailers and Infant Formula Manufacturers
•  Associated Press — Parents swap, sell baby formula
• The New York Times — What Parents Need to Know
• USDA’s Q and A page about options for exchanging Abbott formula for other kinds 
• USDA’s page on the Abbott recall
• USDA’s guidance for keeping infants safe in the midst of formula shortages
• FDA’s details on Abbott product recalls
• CDC’s report on its Cronobacter investigations, now closed
• Wall Street Journal: What caused the baby formula shortage?
• Bill Marler: Abbott caused the infant formula crisi, but the FDA and public health enabled it
• Abbott and FDA agree on pathway to opening Sturgis MI plant
• Abbott denies its formulas were responsible in an 11-tweet Twitter thread

Additional links that came later

• The Washington Post – Biden invokes Defense Production Act to boost baby formula supply
• WhiteHouse.gov – Letter from President Biden to Secretary Xavier Becerra and Secretary Thomas Vilsack on addressing infant formula shortage  
• Fact sheet: President Biden announces new actions to address infant formula shortage
• Memorandum on the delegation of authority under the Defense Production Act to ensure an adequate supply of infant formula

Last month, the UK government announced guidance for the food industry on compliance with its new policies on dealing with foods High in Fat, Sugar, or Salt (HFSS): Restricting promotions of products high in fat, sugar or salt by location and by volume price: implementation guidance.  

The food industry is not happy about these policies.

Kellogg has launched a legal challenge.

Kellogg has launched a legal challenge against the Government’s upcoming restrictions on retail promotions for food and drink high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), claiming the rules unfairly represented breakfast cereals.

On what basis?

The manufacturer argued that the formula used tomeasure the nutritional value of food was wrong when it came to breakfast cereals, as the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) only accounted for portions of dry cereals and not for a bowl of cereal and milk…Breakfast cereals are dehydrated foods, that are intended to absorb milk to make the food more palatable and give the food its intended flavour and texture.  Hardly anyone sits down to a bowl of dry breakfast cereals in the morning – cereals are almost always eaten with milk.

What’s really at stake?

From October this year, new legislation will restrict retail promotion of HFSS products. The changes could lead to a reported loss of 1.1bn per year.

The food industry is also arguing that the new regulations will cause a consumer backlash.

These restrictions might escape public scrutiny, but consumers will get a horrible shock when they wake up one day and find their favourite brands have been ruined by regulation and cost more.  Unless manufacturers fight back, be it in the courts or out in the public square, it’ll be too late to do anything about it.

And that the HFSS regulations won’t do any good.

The soft drink industry, however, sees the regulations as no problem: “The soft drinks category will be affected by new HFSS legislation coming into force in England. But having already done plenty of work in reformulating and innovating for the UK sugar tax, the sector is well placed to turn a challenge into an opportunity.”

What’s all this about?  Here’s a quick review of the HFSS history:

2018: In Chapter 2 of the Childhood Obesity Plan,  the UK government set out its intention to end the promotion of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products by location and by price.  It committed to consult on how this should be implemented.  This was based on evidence that food retail price promotions are widespread and effective at influencing food preferences and purchases (particularly for children), and on previous reports recommending reducing and rebalancing promotions towards healthier food and drink to help prevent obesity in children.

2019: The consultation on restricting the promotion of HFSS products was held.

2020:  The government theld a consultation on technical enforcement of the restrictions.  It announced in Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives, that it would legislate to end promotion of HFSS products by volume (for example, “buy one get one free”) and location both online and in store in England.  It published a formal consultation response.

2021: The government introduced legislation to restrict the promotion of HFSS products by volume price both online and in store in England., based on the nutrient profiling technical guidance 2011.) These regulations will come into force on 1 October 2022.

2022: The new restrictions on HFAA promotion. 

The commentary: Perspective: Soy-Based Meat and Dairy Alternatives, Despite Classification as Ultra-Processed Foods, Deliver High-Quality Nutrition on Par With Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Animal-Based Counterparts.  By Mark Messina, John L Sievenpiper, Patricia Williamson, Jessica Kiel, John W Erdman, Jr.  Advances in Nutrition, nmac026, https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmac026

Purpose: “This perspective argues that none of the criticisms of UPFs [ultra-processed foods] apply to soy-based meat and dairy alternatives when compared with their animal-based counterparts, beef and cow milk, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods (group 1). Classifying soy-based meat and dairy alternatives as UPFs may hinder their public acceptance, which could detrimentally affect personal and planetary health. In conclusion, the NOVA classification system is simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soy.

Conflicts of interest: the statement is so long that I will save it for the end.

Comment: This commentary is a critique of the NOVA classification system, which puts foods in four categories by level of processing:

• Group 1: Unprocessed/minimally processed (fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, meat, milk with no complicated additives)
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (oils, fats, butter, vinegars, sugar, and salt eaten with added to Group 1)
• Group 3: Processed (mix of groups 1 and 2, chiefly for preservation)
• Group 4: Ultra-processed (industrially produced, cannot be made in home kitchens, chemical additives)

By this time, literally hundreds of studies have linked frequent consumption of ultra-processed (“junk”) foods to weight gain and its associated chronic diseases—type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc—as well as high risk for poor outcome from COVID-19.  One carefully controlled clinical trial has shown that ultra-processed diets induce people to unwittingly take in more calories (“you can’t eat just one.”).

Artificial meats and dairy products made with plant proteins clearly meet the definition of ultra-processed.   Are soy products in a different category from those made with pea protein, for example?  Should plant-based meats in general be exempt from being considered ultra-processed?

I don’t think we know yet whether these products are better for health and the environment.  The issues are complicated and we don’t yet have the research or experience.

These authors report conflicted ties—many such ties—to companies making soy products and other products that might be considered ultra-processed:

Author disclosures: MM is employed by the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, an organization that receives funding from the United Soybean Board and industry members who are involved in the manufacture and/or sale of soyfoods and/or soybean components. JLS has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Research Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, PSI Foundation, Banting and Best Diabetes Centre (BBDC), American Society for Nutrition (ASN), INC International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, National Dried Fruit Trade Association, National Honey Board (the USDA honey “Checkoff” program), International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, The United Soybean Board (the USDA soy “Checkoff” program), The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), and The Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council). He has received food donations to support randomized controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Peanut Institute, Barilla, Unilever/Upfield, Unico/Primo, Loblaw Companies, Quaker, Kellogg Canada, WhiteWave Foods/Danone, Nutrartis, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees, and/or honoraria from Diabetes Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, International Sweeteners Association, Nestlé, Pulse Canada, Canadian Society for Endocrinology and Metabolism (CSEM), GI Foundation, Abbott, General Mills, Biofortis, ASN, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, INC Nutrition Research and Education Foundation, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre (CEFS), Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Calorie Control Council, International Glutamate Technical Committee, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Perkins Coie LLP, Tate & Lyle, Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung Zucker eV, Danone, and Inquis Clinical Research. He is a member of the European Fruit Juice Association Scientific Expert Panel and former member of the Soy Nutrition Institute (SNI) Scientific Advisory Committee. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves or has served as an unpaid scientific advisor for the Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program (FNSP) and the Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of ILSI North America. He is a member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD, and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His wife is an employee of AB InBev. PW is employed by Cargill, Inc, a global food company headquartered in Wayzata, MN. Cargill produces soy-based food and industrial products. JK is employed by Medifast Inc., a nutrition and weight-management company based in Baltimore, Maryland, that uses soy protein in many of its products. JWE is a scientific advisory to the Soy Nutrition Institute Global.

My son-in-law, Michael Suenkel, sent me a link to this video clip from Rachel Maddow, with a note:

This is from  Rachel Maddow last night.  Trump on fruits and vegetables.  Either hilarious, terrifying, or deeply embarrassing depending on whether you’re a half full or half empty person, I suppose.  Start at 4:35.

I went right to 4:35.

And then I saw Emily Heil’s account of this incident in the Washington Post: Trump’s killer tomatoes and the history of food as protest projectile.  She summarizes the former President’s testimony:

Trump, we learned on Wednesday, actually feared for his life at the other end of a major food group, or at least claimed to…Death by fruit? “I think that they have to be aggressive in stopping that from happening,” Trump said, in a deposition whose transcript was reported this week, about the approach his security detail took in 2015 to threats that protesters at a 2015 campaign rally might launch a vegetal attack. “Because if that happens, you can be killed if that happens. … To stop somebody from throwing pineapples, tomatoes, bananas, stuff like that, yeah, it’s dangerous stuff.”

Heil, clearly a serious scholar, goes deeper.  Not only are tomatoes thrown at politicians, but also other foods: eggs, pies, milkshakes, spaghetti.

Pies?  I was there!  I was in the audience at the National Nutrition Summit in Washington, DC, when a protester threw a pie at USDA Secretary Dan Glickman.  You can see this for yourself in this short clip introduced by Jon Stewart.  Here’s a screenshot.

Glickman ducked and avoided the worst of it.  He discussed the incident in a 2021 Tweet.

Scholars: I see a doctoral dissertation in food projectiles.  Get to work!

The Government Accountability Office has just issued this report:  Evidence-Based Policy Making: USDA’s Decision to Relocate Research Agencies to Kansas City Was Not Fully Consistent with an Evidence-Based Approach

You may recall that in October 2019, USDA relocated most Economic Research Service staff positions from Washington DC to Kansas City, MO.  At the time, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue said the move would save taxpayers more than $300 million over ten years.

This defied credulity.  The real reason had to be that politically appointed USDA officials wanted to destroy the ERS.  Its economists produce reports that tell truths inconvenient for political expediency.

An easy way to destroy an agency is to move it half way across the country.  That way three-quarters of the professional staff would quit or retire.

I considered this move a national tragedy, and said so repeatedly.

• September 21, 2018  USDA’s double-speak proposal to “improve” the ERS: brute-force politics
• May 28, 2019 USDA’s destruction of the Economic Research Service: A National Tragedy
• June 18, 2019 The tragic destruction of the Economic Research Service, continued
• July 10, 2019 One more time: the Economic Research Service tragedy  
• August 6, 2019 The true purpose of moving the ERS out of DC: “Drain the Swamp”
• May 28, 2019  USDA’s destruction of the Economic Research Service: A National Tragedy
• June 18, 2019 The tragic destruction of the Economic Research Service, continued
• September 30, 2020 The Counter investigates: the Economic Research Service’s shameful downfall
• February 17, 2021  We now have a chance to repair the damage done to the Economic Research Service

The GAO is more polite than I am.  Here is a summary excerpt from the report’s Highlights.

USDA’s stated objectives for relocation were to improve its ability to attract and retain highly-qualified staff; place its resources closer to stakeholders and consumers; and reduce costs to taxpayers.

However, GAO found that the economic analysis did not fully align with those objectives. ..USDA omitted critical costs and economic effects from its analysis of taxpayer savings, such as costs related to potential attrition or disruption of activities for a period of time, which may have contributed to an unreliable estimate of savings from relocation.

Overall, GAO found that USDA’s development and usage of evidence had significant limitations… As a result of the weaknesses GAO found, USDA leadership may have made a relocation decision that was not the best choice to accomplish its stated objectives.

But it did achieve its unstated objective: to weaken, if not destroy, ERS.   This agency is still publishing reports, but most of them are uncontroversial estimates of food production and use.  Occasionally I see glimmers of the kinds of reports the agency used to produce.  Let’s hope more of them are on their way.

The Center for Food As Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center have released their first-ever academic narrative review and report of the food-as-medicine movement: Food as medicine review and report: how food and diet impact the treatment of disease.

As the press release puts it,

Food has always been a part of medical practice, going back millennia; however, as medical procedures and treatments became more sophisticated, modern societies began to disregard the role of food in the treatment of disease. Using food to treat disease was viewed as an uncivilized approach. This led to a gap between modern medicine and the use of food to treat disease, and a lack of acceptance of food-based interventions in modern treatment plans.

the report has five parts:

1. Background information on the history of using food to treat disease,
2. Modern challenges to widespread use and acceptance of food as medicine practices,
3. Current evidence about contemporary food as medicine practices (such as medically tailored meals, produce prescriptions, and functional foods),
4. Literature review of food as treatment for specific disease states, and
5. Recommendations to stakeholders (including policymakers, health care professionals, and academics) to contribute to a healthier, more equitable health care system.

Here are the report’s key findings (my paraphrase)

• Medical schools do not often require nutrition instruction.
• Social media makes food as medicine appear pseudoscientific.
• Websites confuse the public about role of food in disease prevention and treatment.
• Supplements cause confusion.
• Dietary Guidelines are influenced by food companies and do not always reflect current science.
• The FDA allows misleading marketing and health claims on packaged foods.
• Research funded by food companies misleads the public.
• Nutrition incentive programs (e.g., NYC’s Health Bucks) can help combat food and nutrition insecurity.
• The government should support food as medicine interventions such as medically tailored meals and produce prescription programs.

See Food Tank: 22 Global Medical Professionals Practicing Food as Medicine

Here are 22 medical professionals working to use food as a critical tool for treating, controlling, and healing from illness and maintaining health.

Along those lines, The Rockefeller Foundation Commits USD 105M to Making Healthy and Sustainable Foods More Accessible Around the World.

Today The Rockefeller Foundation launched its new Good Food Strategy, which will invest USD 105 million over three years to increase access to healthy and sustainable foods for 40 million underserved people around the globe. The program will support a shift in public and private spending toward foods that are nutritious, regenerate the environment, and create equitable economic opportunity for people at every step of the food supply chain.

And here is Dr. David Katz on this theme.

We could transition from the dual costs of medication to fix only partly all the parts of us food keeps breaking. Food as the medicine long ago invoked by Hippocrates could save lives, vitality, biodiversity — and a vast fortune into the bargain. The drumbeat tolls of necessity in the guise of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, climate change — and the acutely calamitous toll of COVID, as well. We may, whenever so inclined, invoke the will to invent the better way.

And let’s not forget the Food is Medicine Initiative from the Aspen Institute. which I wrote about previously here.

Comment: I prefer to think of food as food (a pleasure) and medicine as medicine (a pain) and not conflate them, but there s no question that eating healthfully is a good health habit along with being active, getting enough sleep, and not smoking, or overdoing on alcohol or recreational drugs.  If food-as-medicine initiatives help people eat more healthfully, it’s hard to argue with them, and I won’t.

Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich has produced a blockbuster exposé of the FDA.

If you’ve been worried that the FDA is not doing its job, you are not alone.  This is an astonishing piece of in-depth reporting on the current status of this agency, which in addition to regulating drugs is responsible for the safety and labeling of three-quarters of the food we eat.

I have long complained that the FDA has two structural handicaps:

1. The FDA Commissioner is not even close to being a cabinet-level appointment; it is at least two steps down the reporting ladder, meaning lots of reporting requirements and authority.
2. FDA gets its funding from congressional agriculture committees, even though it is an agency of the Public Health Service.  This result of history puts it secondary to USDA in committee funding priority.

I also have long believed that it would be better all the way around if the FDA strongly regulated the food industry.  Strong regulatory agencies are essential for:

• Trust in science
• Trust in government
• Trust in the food supply
• Establishing a level playing field for the food industry

Here’s what Bottemiller Evich found when she looked into FDA’s delays in getting regulations into place:

Many consumers would be surprised to learn this anemic, slow response is typical for an agency that oversees nearly 80 percent of the American food supply, but slow is what insiders in Washington have come to expect from FDA, regardless of administration.

A monthslong POLITICO investigation found that regulating food is simply not a high priority at the agency, where drugs and other medical products dominate, both in budget and bandwidth – a dynamic that’s only been exacerbated during the pandemic.

Over the years, the food side of FDA has been so ignored and grown so dysfunctional that even former FDA commissioners readily acknowledged problems in interviews.

Her investigation comes in five parts:

1. “It’s a struture that’s designed to fail.” This part deals with leadership challenges.
2. “A bit of a black hole.”   Why the FDA took so long to get out standards for regulating irrigation water, and weak ones at that.
3. The rage of a million parents.  The FDA’s failure to take vigorous action to remove toxic metals from baby food and ensure the safety of infant formula.
4. “Our food is making us sicker” Why the FDA has been so lax about getting sodium reduced in the food supply.
5. “They ignore everyone.” The agency, which seems excessively responsive to industry, doesn’t consult its leaders adequately.

Bottemiller Evich says:

• Read the four major findings from our investigation.
• Have you complained to the FDA about the Similac recall or another infant formula problem? We want to hear from you.

Every bit of this is worth reading and pondering.  We need a strong, active FDA, unafraid to take unpopular stances to protect public health.

The FDA needs an overhaul.  I hope it comes soon.

Maybe this article will get everyone thinking about how best to get this?

Congressional reactions: Lawmakers demand answers from FDA after investigation on food failures

• Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.), who leads the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a strongly-worded letter to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf Monday afternoon seeking “immediate action to ensure the FDA is doing all it can to fulfill all aspects of its mission to protect the health and safety of the American people.”
• Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, tweeted Monday that he is requesting a briefing from the agency.
• House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) also tweeted criticism over the weekend: “The ‘F’ in FDA has come to mean ‘failure’ on food safety,” she wrote. “We must greatly intensify the pressure to get the FDA to do its job and to keep the American people safe and alive.

Bill Marler’s: FDA’s failures have consequences – real people – here is one story – there are countless others

The FDA’s?  The agency has not released a statement but by coincidence it is holding a webinar tomorrow on one aspect of Politico’s investigation.  An opportunity to ask questions?

Please join the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a webinaron April 13, 2022 at 2 p.m. on the Foodborne Outbreak Response Improvement Plan that the agency released in early December 2021.

Michael Taylor on the need for a separate food safety agency or better direction for food within FDA.

I’m thrilled to announce that information about my forthcoming book—out October 4—is now available on the University of California Press website

Preordering options

• Amazon
• Barnes & Noble
• Bookshop
• IndieBound
• Powell’s
• UC Press

Here’s the official description:

Marion Nestle reflects on her late-in-life career as a world-renowned food politics expert, public health advocate, and a founder of the field of food studies after facing decades of low expectations.

In this engrossing memoir, Marion Nestle reflects on how she achieved late-in-life success as a leading advocate for healthier and more sustainable diets. Slow Cooked recounts of how she built an unparalleled career at a time when few women worked in the sciences, and how she came to recognize and reveal the enormous influence of the food industry on our dietary choices.

By the time Nestle obtained her doctorate in molecular biology, she had been married since the age of nineteen, dropped out of college, worked as a lab technician, divorced, and become a stay-at-home mom with two children. That’s when she got started. Slow Cooked charts her astonishing rise from bench scientist to the pinnacles of academia, as she overcame the barriers and biases facing women of her generation and found her life’s purpose after age fifty. Slow Cooked tells her personal story—one that is deeply relevant to everyone who eats, and anyone who thinks it’s too late to follow a passion.

And here are the amazing back-cover blurbs (for which I am deeply grateful):

• “Marion Nestle is one of my heroes. After reading her riveting memoir, I admire her more than ever. She is one of the most important voices in the food world, and in this book she gets personal for the first time.”—Ruth Reichl, former editor of Gourmet Magazine 
• “Marion Nestle is a national treasure, and now you can learn how she came to be. Just like Nestle herself, this beautiful memoir is thoughtful, generous, unstinting, and deeply committed to learning from the past to build a better world.”—Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System 
• “I have always had such admiration for Marion Nestle: she is one of our nation’s shrewdest thinkers and has transformed the way all of us think about public health, the industrial food industry, nutrition, and the future of food. With this extraordinary book, I see for the first time how she became the clear-eyed, indefatigable warrior that she is. Her radical self-reflection and honesty is deeply moving—and in telling her life’’s story, Marion is forging a path for the next generation of food activists.”—Alice Waters, chef, author, food activist, and founder of Chez Panisse restaurant 
• “Marion Nestle is a brilliant, courageous champion of healthy food, social justice, and scientific integrity. This poignant and inspiring book tells us how she came to be that way.”—Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal 
• “Extraordinary! Nestle’s story moves me, heart and soul. I have long admired her leadership in awakening us to the crisis of our corporate-corrupted food system. In this work, however, she offers hope in the capacity of humans to transform obstacles and denigration into opportunity and dignity. She shares a gripping, very personal story that will help us discover our own courage. Just what’s needed now more than ever.”—Frances Moore Lappé, cofounder of Small Planet Institute