by Marion Nestle

Search results: Cereal

Apr 2 2025

Keeping up with MAHA: RFK Jr’s latest actions

There is never a dull moment with Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s taking over the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Wall Street Journal announced this first: RFK Jr. Plans 10,000 Job Cuts in Major Restructuring of Health Department

Kennedy on Thursday said the agency would ax 10,000 full-time employees spread across agencies tasked with responding to disease outbreaks, approving new drugs, providing insurance for the poorest Americans and more. The cuts are in addition to roughly 10,000 employees who chose to leave the department through voluntary separation offers since President Trump took office, according to the department.

Together, the cuts would eliminate about one-quarter of a workforce that would shrink to 62,000. The department would lose five of its 10 regional offices.

RFK Jr explained what all this was about in a six-minute video) on Twitter (X: “We’re going to eliminate an entire alphabet soup of departments and agencies while preserving their core function.”The agency said the 25% reduction in workforce would not affect essential services.

That, however, is a matter of opinion.  As Politico put itRFK Jr.’s massive cuts stun staff, leave senior employees scrambling, which, one can only suppose, is the point.

To further explain, HHS issued Fact Sheet: HHS’ Transformation to Make America Health Again.

You can read it for yourself, but here are selected items that got my attention [my comments follow]

    • FDA will decrease its workforce by approximately 3,500 full-time employees, with a focus on streamlining operations and centralizing administrative functions. This reduction will not affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors. [This is hard to believe.  Many staff have already left.  Were they scientists?  Who is left who can write Federal Register notices, for example].
    • The CDC will decrease its workforce by approximately 2,400 employees, with a focus on returning to its core mission of preparing for and responding to epidemics and outbreaks. [But the first layoffs were of probationary staff of the Epidemiology Intelligence Service.  They may have been hired back, but it’s hard to imagine what morale is like]
    • The consolidation and cuts are designed not only to save money, but to make the organization more efficient and more responsive to Americans’ needs, and to implement the Make America Healthy Again goal of ending the chronic disease epidemic. [How, pray tell]
    • A new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) will…coordinate chronic care and disease prevention programs and harmonize health resources to low-income Americans. [This could work if done right and if adequate personnel are still available]

My question here is to what end?  What, exactly, does RFK Jr plan to do to Make America Healthy Again?

So far, he has done a few things:

  • Made it clear that food companies have to stop using artificial color dyes.
  • Started talking about closing the GRAS loophole (that allows companies to say whether additives are safe)
  • Indicated that he prefers beef tallow to seed oils.

I am all for getting rid of artificial colors and closing the GRAS loophole but neither of those is a major cause of obesity and its health consequences.  Nor will replacing seed oils with beef tallow addresss that problem; both have about the same number of calories.

If RFK Jr really wants to Make America Health Again, he needs to get American eating less junk food and more real food.  Yes, food colors are a marker of ultra-processed foods but they are mainly in candy, confectionary, and kids’ cereals.

I’m eagerly waiting to hear what RFK Jr plans to do to help Americans reduce calorie intake, reduce intake of ultra-processed foods, stop smoking, avoid drinking too much alcohol, become more physically active, and eat more vegetables.

Tags: ,
Feb 20 2025

RIP FD&C Red No. 3?

As practically its last act under the Biden Administration, the FDA  Revoked Authorization for the Use of Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs.

The FDA is revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 as a matter of law, based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The FDA is amending its color additive regulations to no longer allow for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs in response to a 2022 color additive petition.

The Delaney Clause says the FDA cannot consider any substance that causes cancer in animals to be GRAS (generally recognized as safe).

Red 3 was associated with cancer in laboratory animals 30 years ago but the FDA considered the issue low priority and nobody complained until the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed its petition.  Then the FDA had to act.

For food safety advocates, this has been a long time coming.

The FDA’s action fits well with the Make America Health Again (MAHA) agenda.

Vani Hari (the Food Babe) says:

thefoodbabe (@Vani Hari) posted: It’s truly amazing what can happen when we put our differences aside & work together, it took a lot of loud American voices to get the FDA to ban red #3. Big thanks to @CSPI @ewg @SenRonJohnson @SenSanders @TTuberville @realannapaulina @CFSTrueFood @CoryBooker @RobertKennedyJr

She points out that this is only the first salvo in getting artificial food colors out of the food supply, especially breakfast cereals.

thefoodbabe (@Vani Hari) posted: .@KelloggsUS refusal to sit down with us will be biggest PR mistake in the Food Industry.

Food dyes may not be the most important food concern but they are unnecessary cosmetics and ought to be low hanging fruit for action.  Getting rid of them is long overdue.

Comment

RFK, Jr promised to get the artificial food dyes out of cereals as soon as he could be appointed HHS Secretary.  Will he do that immediately, or will this need to wait for the MAHA Commission action report in 6 months?  We shall see.

Press accounts

Feb 4 2025

Avoiding toxic metals in baby foods

A reader, William Haaf, alerted me to this one: California companies required to disclose heavy metal content in baby food

As of January 2025, baby food manufacturers selling in California must disclose test results for four heavy metals – arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury – via an on-pack QR code.

The law, Assembly Bill 899 (AB 899), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2023 and requires monthly testing of baby food for the specified contaminants.

Manufacturers must now provide a QR code on product packaging that links to publicly available test results, including batch numbers and links to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) information on toxic heavy metals.

What this is about

How to avoid toxic metals in baby foods: Suggestions

  • Offer a variety of healthy vegetables and fruits
  • Make your own baby food
  • Limit highly processed foods
  • Limit rice cereal
  • Offer other cereals and whole grains
  • If you must give fruit juice, make your own
  • Limit processed snacks
  • Don’t use teething biscuits.
  • Test your tap water

 

Jan 8 2025

The FDA’s Healthy Claim Rule is Final

Here’s what the FDA says about Use of the Term Healthy on Food Labeling.

To meet the updated criteria for the claim, a food product needs to

  1. contain a certain amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (such as fruit, vegetables, grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy and protein foods) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and
  2. meet specific limits for added sugars, saturated fat and sodium.

To qualify, a breakfast cereal, bread, or any other grain food would need to have 3/4 ounce of whole grains, and have less than 10% of the Daily Value for added sugars (5 grams per serving), less than 10% for sodium (230 mg per serving), and less that 1 gram of saturated fat (5% DV).

On this basis, kids cereals won’t qualify.

Oh.  And the FDA is still working on the symbol.

Resources

Dec 13 2024

Weekend reading: Digital marketing to kids

While we are on the topic of marketing to kids, Healthy Eating Research has published a major report on digital food marketing: Evidence-Based Recommendations to Mitigate Harms from Digital Food Marketing to Children Ages 2-17.  

Despite its importance, the report is dense, detailed, and not easy to summarize.  Fortunately, I received an email with Key Messages

  • An expert panel convened by Healthy Eating Research reviewed research and current policies on digital food marketing and developed recommendations for government policies, industry practices, and further research.
  • Digital food and beverage marketing is embedded in nearly every platform children and adolescents use (websites, mobile apps, social media, video sharing, gaming, streaming TV), promoting sugary drinks, fast food, candy, sugary cereals, and sweet/salty snacks, which is harming children’s health.
  • National experts carefully assessed the evidence and found actions policymakers and industry can take to reduce children’s exposure to and the power of unhealthy digital food and beverage marketing.

My recommendation: start with the Fact Sheet for Parents.

The most common types of foods marketed to kids online are fast food, salty snacks, candy, sweet snacks, and sugary drinks. These ads appear on social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat; video sharing sites like YouTube and TikTok; gaming platforms like Roblox and Minecraft; livestream gaming on Twitch and Facebook Gaming; and mobile apps and websites. Younger kids see more ads for candy and sweet snacks, while older kids and teenagers see more ads for snack foods. About 75% of kids have seen ads for energy drinks.

That’s what parents are up against.  As for what to do about it, short of throwing away the phone, the report urges advocacy for phone-free schools and other policies at Fair Play for Kids  and Design It For Us.

It’t tough being a parent these days.  Join those groups and take action!

Resources

Nov 19 2024

RFK, Jr to head HHS: brilliant move or catastrophe?

I spent a lot of time last week responding to reporters’ questions about Trump’s appointing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Here’s what the president-elect said about the appointment on Twitter (X):

For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health…HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!

Trump has instructed Mr. Kennedy to end chronic disease and “Go wild on food.”

In various statements, Mr. Kennedy has said he wants to get rid of “poisons”

  • Ultra-processed foods in schools
  • Artificial colors in cereals
  • Chemicals, pollutants, pesticides
  • Mercury in fish
  • Fast food

He also wants to

These are the kinds of things I’ve been saying and writing about for decades!

[He also is pushing for some things that are much less well grounded in science: getting rid of grains for kids, seed oils, and fluoride in drinking water; deregulating raw milk; and firing all nutrition scientists on day 1].

If he really does do what he’s promising here, it means taking on the food industry, in a way that no government has ever done, and Trump showed no signs of doing in his first term.

What can we expect?  I have no idea, but thist sure will be interesting to watch.

Mother Jones calls Kennedy’s appointment “a genuine catastrophe.”

For charges of hypocrisy, click here.

Civil Eats asked a bunch of people to predict “The Path Forward for Food and Ag.”  Here’s what I said.

I wish I had a crystal ball to say how food and agriculture issues would play out over the next four years, but all I have to go on is what Trump and his followers say. If we take them at their word, then we must expect them to implement their Project 2025 plan, which replaces one deep state with another that favors conservative business interests and ideology. This calls for replacing staff in federal agencies with Trump loyalists and dismantling them, stopping the USDA from doing anything to prevent climate change, reforming farm subsidies (unclear how), splitting the farm bill to deal separately with agricultural supports and SNAP, reducing SNAP participation by reinstating work requirements and reducing the Thrifty Food Plan, and making it more difficult for kids to participate in school meals.

On the other hand, some of the plans make sense: eliminating checkoff programs and repealing the sugar program, for example. So do some of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s goals: Make America Healthy Again by focusing on chronic disease prevention, getting harmful chemicals out of kids’ foods, and getting rid of conflicts of interest among researchers and agency staff. It’s too early to know how much of this is just talk, but I’m planning to do what I can to oppose measures I view as harmful, but to strongly support the ones I think will be good for public health.

Apr 30 2024

USDA updates school nutrition standards

Last week, the USDA issued new rules for the nutrient content of school meals and also child care programs.

These apply to sugar and sodium (nutrients), whole grains (ingredient or food),  and milk (food).

The New York Times report on this cut right to the chase

The Agriculture Department announced on Wednesday that it had finalized the regulation it had first proposed in February 2023, having weakened several provisions after feedback from food companies, school nutrition professionals and over 136,000 public comments.

The Update to the standards describes the changes and compares them to USDA’s original proposals.

  • Sugars: For the first time (I’m not kidding), the USDA set limits on sugars, starting with breakfast cereals (6 grams per ounce), yogurt (12 grams per 6-ounce serving), and milk (10 grams per 8-ounce serving).  This allows chocolate and other flavored milks if companies get the sugar down to 10 grams.
  • Sodium: beginning July 2027, sodium will be reduced by 15% for lunch and 10% for breakfast from current limits (USDA proposed 3 consecutive reductions of 10% over the next five years.
  • Whole grains: no change from current standard (USDA proposed that 80% of grains be whole).
  • Milk: Allows flavored fat-free and low-fat.

Comment: The sugar rule is an improvement, even though products still are sweetened.  The weakening of the sodium proposal is troubling.  We badly need to reduce sodium in processed and restaurant foods and need federal leadership for doing so.  USDA caved to political pressure here.  The USDA has a long history of captivity by Big Ag.  Now it looks captured by Big Food.

The food industry complaint is that its products won’t meet these standards.  The school food complaint is that the standards are too hard to meet, the kids won’t eat the food, and it will be wasted.

I have a lot of sympathy for school foodservice.  It’s the only thing going on in schools that has to be self-supporting, and school food programs are hugely underfunded.  And lots of schools don’t have kitchens to must rely on food products rather than real food.

But from what I’ve observed, two kinds of skills are needed for successful school meal programs: the ability (1) to prepare and serve edible healthy food, and (2) to get the kids to eat it.  I’ve seen every permutation.

  1. Good food, kids eat it
  2. Good food, kids won’t eat it
  3. So-so food, kids eat it
  4. So-so food, kids won’t eat it

Whenever I hear “the kids won’t eat it,” I wonder where the adults are. From what I’ve seen, if adults care that kids are fed, the kids will eat the food—not all, necessarily, but most.

School food is not just about the food.  It’s about the interactions of school food personnel, teachers, and the principal with the kids.  If the adults think it important and necessary to feed kids healthy food, the program has a good chance of success.  The new USDA standards are a step in the right direction but still have a way to go.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had food standards rather than nutrition standards?  How about mandating numbers of servings of real foods instead of worrying about grams of sugar and milligrams of sodium.

A thought,

Additional Resources

Apr 26 2024

Weekend reading: report on sugar content of Nestlé’s baby food products—by country

An investigative report from Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN): “How Nestlé gets children hooked on sugar in lower-income countries.”

Nestlé’s leading baby-food brands, promoted in low- and middle-income countries as healthy and key to supporting young children’s development, contain high levels of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is headquartered, such products are sold with no added sugar. These are the main findings of a new investigation by Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which shed light on Nestlé’s hypocrisy and the deceptive marketing strategies deployed by the Swiss food giant.

The report points out that Nestlé (no relation) “currently controls 20 percent of the baby-food market, valued at nearly $70 billion.”

Nestlé promotes Cerelac and Nido as brands whose aim is to help children “live healthier lives”. Fortified with vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients, these products are, according to the multinational, tailored to the needs of babies and young children and help to strengthen their growth, immune system and cognitive development….

Spoiler alert: Our investigation shows that, for Nestlé, not all babies are equal when it comes to added sugar. While in Switzerland, where the company is headquartered, the main infant cereals and formula brands sold by the multinational come without added sugar, most Cerelac and Nido products marketed in lower-income countries do contain added sugar, often at high levels.

For example, in Switzerland, Nestlé promotes its biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged from six months with the claim “no added sugar”, while in Senegal and South Africa, Cerelac cereals with the same flavour contain 6 grams of added sugar per serving….

Similarly, in Germany, France and the UK – Nestlé’s main European markets – all formulas for young children aged 12-36 months sold by the company contain no added sugar. And while some infant cereals for young children over one year old contain added sugar, cereals for babies aged six months do not.

Do small amounts of sugar like these make any difference to babies’ health?  After all, 6 gram is just a bit more than a teaspoon.

They might make a big difference:

  • They get kids hooked on sugars.
  • The sugars can add up quickly.

For sure, this report shows is that sugar is not really necessary.  It is there to encourage sales, not health.

The report is getting international publicity: